TalkBoard Elections/08 - Question 11: Forum Creation/Deletion

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?
What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal? Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

The big question.

And I don't think there's a simple answer.

Segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial to the extent that it is beneficial, otherwise it's not beneficial. Well - as an answer it's totally correct, totally accurate and tells you nothing. It's really a question of where the lines is - and indeed I'm not at all convinced taht said line is a nice straight one!

In terms of creating forums and closing forums my criteria would be whether I think it's a good idea - and beyond that there's not much I can say. There are a whole range of reasons I might support a proposal, and a whole range of reasons I might be against a proposal. Obviously traffic levels and worthiness play a part - but there's no fixed metrics.

To my mind the best defence against bad collective decisions on the part of TB is for each member to simply stick to asking the general question of whether something is a good idea. With 9 votes the right decision would just happen.

Instead at present there's the politics, the high school debates, the navel gazing - and the let's-do-anything-other-thatn-answer-the-bloody-question.

If any member wants to know my views on the merits of any particular proposal - feel free to PM me and I'll add to this thread with my 'vote' and my reasoning.

I would look at the net effect of creating a new forum.

If it cannibalized an existing forum to the point where the existing forum no longer has any (or any meaningful) traffic, then obviously there shouldn't have been a new forum, just a refocus or rename of the old one.

I would also try to get some feedback from those who are posting (via PM and post in the forum itself) as well as try to drum up some qualitative data from those who may not post very often but who benefit (or claim they do) from the forum.

I do not consider clutter or segmentation to be a major problem within FT as it currently sits, however, there is a risk that too much specialization could minimize the impact FT can have going forward. For example, I just had a walk-through of the Midwest regional board and it has virtually no traffic whatsoever. I have little confidence that posting a question there will yield a quick response -- I could be very wrong, but this is the kind of feeling newbies would have and perhaps they would decide to find another board outside of FT to ask the question.

I know this doesn't answer the question, but if there was any consolidation to be done, I would look at the boards that don't seem to have a lot of traffic and see if there were any related boards so that both could benefit from such a combination. Removing a board in its entirety should be done only if the threads posted there could easily slide back into a more general board.

Segmentation is good if there's an unfulfilled need. One of the reasons why I voted Yes for the Traveling with Pets forum (which, even as a dog owner, I was initially against) is because I scoured the internet for any other Traveling with Pets type forum and it just didn't exist in a quality way. There's been the occassional request for Non-Rev & Airline employee travel forums - this is something I've never supported for FlyerTalk because there are other travel forums which do an much better job & act as a much better resource, than, IMHO, FT could be in that regard.

I believe that there should be a demonstrated need for a forum before voting for it - and whereas I used to be of the mindset that new forums are bad - not all of them are. I don't have any personal metrics as to whether or not a forum is good or bad - but I listen to what the members have to say. As for "failed" forums - I try to determine whether or not the posts in the forum are relevant & whether the users of that forum are actively participating and what kind of information is being discussed. I think that applies mostly to the special interest forums (which are the most controversial here on FT). Whereas I'm sold on continuance of the Religious Travelers forum - I'm still not sold on the Seniors Travel forum & wonder whether a consolidated sticky discussing Senior Discounts in TravelBuzz or SPAM may be a better option. Granted, the argument of "now that it's created - is it hurting anyone?" comes to mind. The answer is No - it's not - but is it overly segmenting FT? Maybe.

I guess my answer is that each forum must be considered on its individual merits & there's no easy answer.

If it cannibalized an existing forum to the point where the existing forum no longer has any (or any meaningful) traffic, then obviously there shouldn't have been a new forum, just a refocus or rename of the old one.

I would also try to get some feedback from those who are posting (via PM and post in the forum itself) as well as try to drum up some qualitative data from those who may not post very often but who benefit (or claim they do) from the forum.

I do not consider clutter or segmentation to be a major problem within FT as it currently sits, however, there is a risk that too much specialization could minimize the impact FT can have going forward. For example, I just had a walk-through of the Midwest regional board and it has virtually no traffic whatsoever. I have little confidence that posting a question there will yield a quick response -- I could be very wrong, but this is the kind of feeling newbies would have and perhaps they would decide to find another board outside of FT to ask the question.

All good points and I think evidence that there's no simple answer. I really can;t stress enough that I'm very much of the belief that it's a case of getting 9 people to simply answer the 'is it a good idea' question. If 7 of 9 say it is... then it probably is!

It would be much easier for TB to decide on opening a new forum if we had a better process for closing existing forums that have not succeeded.

I have one guiding principle on all FT policy questions: Does the proposal add value to FT or does it subtract value? It's a simple question, but it's difficult to answer.

Is FT more valuable when special interest content is presented in its own forum, even though that forum only draws a handful of readers? Or is FT more valuable when that content is mixed in with more general interest content, making it visible to a much greater number of readers?

If you answered that question yes or no, your answer is incorrect. The answer is that it depends on just how special the special interest is. If the handful of readers are the only ones who will be interested, and if the readers of the general interest forum who stumble across these threads will only be annoyed to see them, then a separate forum is the way to go. On the other hand, if even a small fraction of the readers of the general interest forum will be pleased that they found these threads, then separating the material probably decreases the value of FT.

Given this, why is it hard to close an unsuccessful forum? Because TB members are human, and they don't want to deliver a perceived insult to the handful of members who are active in the forum in question. But TB does not represent only those members. The TB represents all FT members, including the readers of the more general forum. Those readers will benefit from closure of the special interest forum if the material has some general interest. Even proponents of the special interest forum will probably benefit from having a wider audience, if they can just get past the blow to the ego that closure of the special interest forum represents.

TB members need to remind themselves that the best interest of FT includes members who don't speak out on an issue and may not even be aware that they are potential beneficiaries of a forum closure.

Once we have a better track record on forum closure, any remaining issues with forum opening will be easier to solve.

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?
What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal? Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

It all depends on peoples views. Take the IC forum. You could break that down into the respective hotel brands i.e. IC, CP, HI, HIX, XHi etc so that if you only stayed at IC then you can read about them, but if your work only pays for HIX stays then you might just want to read about them.

The thing is where would you stop? I would say that breaking up forums would be pretty bad and would water down the traffic to that forum.

If a forum is hardly used then there should be justification as to why it should not be merged with another forum or shut down altogether.

The majority of folk visiting FT will only view a handful of forums, some will spend their life in Omni (well it seems that way....:p )

regards
J

Forum Creation - There is a big difference between the "core" of Flyertalk (Miles & Points) and the "other" forums. For the "core" part of Flyertalk, I strongly support almost the "automatic" creation of forums for "credible" travel companies. For "other" forums, there needs to be "demand" for the forum for information that doesn't really have a "home" elsewhere.

Forum Deletion - If there was proper thought into the creation of the forum, this should be fairly rare. Things that should be considered include: activity (threads/posts in the forum), whether there are other forums that can provide a good alternative "home" for the information (since we've moved away from dumping everything into TravelBuzz which is a good change), and even if there is low level of activity some forums should exist because it provides a needed place for information.

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?
What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal? Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

yes, traffic, yes, traffic - four questions, so excuse my long answer

This is another good question.

There seem to be two schools of thought represented on FT. One seems to favor consolidation of forums (and threads), elimination of "quiet" forums, elimination of redundant threads, and minimizing segmentation of forums. The other prefers macro-segmentation, establishment of forums focused on very narrow interests, etc.

I fall somewhere in-between. I don't believe a forum has to have high traffic to be valuable. As an example, I think Travel with Pets and the Senior Travel Forum are both valid, even important, despite not attracting large numbers of posts. These forums focus on special interests, and these interests are either perceived as being adverse to other groups, or of minimal importance to them. By establishing a Travel with Children forum, those interested in this subject are able to avoid all the "noise" of posters whose input consists of recommending duct tape or car travel (and, yes, I confess to being such a poster ;) ). Such input is of little value, though, to those seeking helpful suggestions when they travel with their kids.

Similarly, many people don't want pets on board or in hotels at all. That view, though, is irrelevant to those who want to travel with their pets and, as long as the airlines and hotels permit it, they are entitled to receiving the benefits of informed and constructive suggestions, right along with the mileage runners.

My metric for approving new forums (or closing existing ones) is very straightforward: does the forum in question serve a useful function for members of the FlyerTalk community? As long as the answer is, "yes," then I don't see a downside to having the forum.

There is a difference between a "specialised" forum such as "Travel with Children", and an outright obscure forum like "Travel with Battery Operated Toys".

One has a place on FT and the other doesn't. I'll leave it to you to judge which. :)

I know that I once read pretty much every forum, even airlines that I did not really travel with and sometimes I found gems of information that I would have missed.

However, there are just too many forums now to make that possible.

I am in favour of a high threshold to open new forums, and to hold them under review perhaps every six months.

In my view the best way for a forum to come in to being is by a need being demonstrated in another forum.

submitted by empedocles
Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

I think the OMNI forum serves no useful purpose on a board dedicated to travel and would support any motion to eliminate it.

In fact, I would even be willing to pledge that should I be elected to the TalkBoard, my first motion would be to consider the elimination of the OMNI forum.

I think the OMNI forum serves no useful purpose on a board dedicated to travel

I once felt the same way. Now, although I still don't visit OMNI, I can see two strong arguments in favor of OMNI:

1. Threads need a place to be moved to when they "go OMNI". The discussion can continue among willing participants without burdening the original forum.

2. FT members build friendships with each other in the miles and points forums. Sometimes they want to discuss other subjects with their FT friends. Providing that capability adds value to FT.

I think the OMNI forum serves no useful purpose on a board dedicated to travel and would support any motion to eliminate it.

In fact, I would even be willing to pledge that should I be elected to the TalkBoard, my first motion would be to consider the elimination of the OMNI forum.

I would never vote for or endorse someone who supported this.

I would never, ever vote to eliminate OMNI, either. I love OMNI (the way it was, with one forum and the post/time requirements for entry).

I once felt the same way. Now, although I still don't visit OMNI, I can see two strong arguments in favor of OMNI:

1. Threads need a place to be moved to when they "go OMNI". The discussion can continue among willing participants without burdening the original forum.

2. FT members build friendships with each other in the miles and points forums. Sometimes they want to discuss other subjects with their FT friends. Providing that capability adds value to FT.

I would never vote for or endorse someone who supported this.

I would never, ever vote to eliminate OMNI, either. I love OMNI (the way it was, with one forum and the post/time requirements for entry).I agree with you completely. My pledge is to support OMNI and its viability if elected.

I'm reminded of a trip I took to a bookstore a couple of years ago. An acquaintance of mine was off to Berlin; and I wanted to buy him a copy of Isherwood's Goodnight, Berlin. It was quite a well-stocked bookstore and --surprised they had absolutely nothing in stock written by one of America's great interwar writers-- I therefore asked one of the staff if they might have something in the back.

It turned-out they carried several books by Christopher Isherwood in the Gay Literature section of the store. Oscar Wilde was also thus pigeonholed.

As straight guy, I don't make a habit of perusing the gay lit bookshelves; and I think it's appalling that two great writers would be reduced to their sexual preference, never to be discovered by the masses.

So, unless there's a compelling reason why a new forum should be created (e.g., Space Travel) I'd like to see consolidation rather than balkanization, and my voting would reflect that principle.

On the subject of OMNI, I think it should not only be allowed to live, but restored to its pre-divided state. If you're reading OMNI, you'll have a tough time convincing me that your time is being wasted by subjects you really don't need or want to read.:p

It is hard to decide if an existing forum should be closed because even with little traffic, some users might like it alot.

A good example is the new Virgin America Forum. I supported it from the start on because I was convinced that the airline has alot of potential and after the launch of it's own FFP we will need a platform. It was the right decision to establish it !

I vote very much for seperation of different topics. Like at the Mileage Run Forum: There are things that do not belong to a place where people look for deals to gain/maintain the FF status. So the MR Discussion Forum came up and I think it's a great way to structure the main forum and give us all a better view of the essentials !

I definitely see the benefit in more fora. What constitutes the need for a new forum? Well, overflow in an existing forum of issues that have only tertiary relation. Also, increased traffic, such as if Spain became a hotter topic in Europe, justifying a standalone forum.

As far as folding a forum up, decreased traffic would seem to be the only good reason I can see. What constitutes decreased traffic? I think I'd set the bar fairly low, since there isn't much of an "expense" to keeping a forum live.

This is a question I have recently debated at length with specific regard to, first, a Fitness Forum, and two, a process for closure of forums.

In the course of those debates, I formed the opinion that forums need to have a reason to exist. There are a few reasons I see forums existing on FT and I think it is a value judgment to say which is more valid. In my daily life I try to stay away from deciding for other people what a good value for them is. But if I were on the TalkBoard I would be asked to do just that.

I therefore need to set parameters I am comfortable with and which could be reasonably expected to be seen as appropriate by my peers.

As a person who is tasked with organizing proposals at my day job, I feel the best type of segmentation for an idea is if it has sufficient and unique sub-headings. In the case of FT sub-headings are called threads. A sub-heading may be long or it may short, but it must above all else be unique. Proposed forums which are deep enough in potential content to have several unique threads not duplicating what currently exists elsewhere or which could more reasonably be blended with other threads in other forums, would indeed be forums which I would look at long and hard for possible support.

I do believe that a TalkBoard member cannot and should not try to make decisions based solely on their experience alone. I would need to gather much data from FT itself, and then learn more by discussing issues with members. I would welcome all proposals, but I would limit my support to those that showed great potential for being able to generate sufficient threads to satisfy the very basic requirement for a forum to exist uniquely at all.

Now please note that I make no value judgment as to how much activity a forum should have. I do not feel activity on its own is sufficient for keeping or closing a forum. Some forums have less daily use but higher views due to existing as a reference of sorts. Those forums exist for a reason and meet the above thread generating criteria.

There are forums which generate massive numbers of threads. United is a good example. Much needed, but hardly a comparable to forums which although unique do not address the aspect of the travel experience that is the garnering of miles and points.

The basic reason FT came into existence was to increase those Miles and Points. But as we have grown as individuals with our own knowledge, as lifestyles have changed, as we have become people familiar enough with each other to ask questions of each other, FT has grown. And I believe there must necessarily be a variety of forums which are not miles and points related.

Answering the question more directly, yes I do believe that meeting the needs of a variety of constituencies, or publics as I prefer to call them is a good thing. Doing so with defined parameters for forums designed specifically for those publics is very important to remember though. I believe it would be a simple matter to agree to use the greater travel experience as a population from which to sample possible forums. Those proposals would then have judgment passed on them based on the criteria of uniqueness. Let the value judgment be a rational one and not a personal one.

And finally to address the issue of closing a forum, I would use the same parameters used for opening a new one. If a forum warranted closing for those reasons in the eyes of any member I would be all ears as to why they thought it did not meet the uniqueness and usefulness criteria. I would look at that argument on its merits and not compare it to my own feelings. I would also make very sure the ideas of those feeling strongly enough to contact me were heard by my peers on the TalkBoard.

And then, according to the rules by which ideas are voted on and offered for advisement to Randy, I would make choices in voting that I felt best represented the needs now and for the future of FT. All of FT, with its wonderful myriad of publics.

Another excellent question.
Overall I am in favor of investigating whether there is a need for a particular new forum. With rare exceptions, I don't think members have proposed new fora just for fun - if members are expressing a desire for a new forum, it's because they have legitimately identified a need. Whether that need serves enough of the FT population is a question TB will be asked each time and i think the decision needs to be made on an individual basis. Low traffic fora may be vitally important to a particular segment of FT to warrant opening them.

That said, I would propose discussion of setting parameters of a baseline of traffic to keep a forum open, or perhaps even that any new forum be re-evaluated in 6 months to see if the traffic warrants its continued existence. I do see some issues with keeping fora that have very little traffic and perhaps clutter FT and I'd be in favor of looking at those parameters to make closure easier.

Overall I don't see a huge problem with segmentation on FT and would be fine with further segmentation if desired.

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?
What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal? Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

I think that there is great advantage for having more forums to cater to additional communities, assuming that there is a need and "customer base" to support such a forum.

I also believe that additions (or course) of forums should not be taken lightly and talked about within the community or talk board before any steps are taken (this is double true when a closure is discussed).

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?

Without question, yes. Just because I am a UA 1K MM and Marriott Platinum with a fairly set-in-stone list of destinations does not mean I will not go to a new destination or kick the tires of a different airline.

As I have mentioned before, some of the best information you can get is by simply reading other forums and gather information on where things on FlyerTalk and the travel industry as a whole are going.



What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal?

Is the topic being already served in another forum already? And if so, how passionate are FlyerTalkers talking about it in that forum, and how much?



Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

Yes, I would. I would use similar criteria I stated in the previous paragraph.

On top of that, I would solicit the advice of the moderator(s) of that forum to get their feedback.

On top of that, I would solicit the advice of the moderator(s) of that forum to get their feedback.

And in [considering the closure of a forum] I'd not just consider the views of the relevant mods - I'd look to hear what the actual users have to say.

It's always tough saying no to people - but, unfortunately, it's what is sometimes required.

submitted by empedocles
Do you believe that segmentation of FlyerTalk into more forums serving a variety of constituencies is beneficial?
What would you look for in considering a new forum proposal? Would you consider eliminating any existing forums and what information would you gather/use in considering such a proposal?

Depends. Sometimes segmentation is good when there's a valid reason for doing so. Other times, it's silly and makes it harder to find information when it's hidden in an under-utilized subforum.

I'd be willing to close any forum for which a good case can be made that the information in the forum is not being disseminated in the best manner and that the information could reach a wider audience elsewhere.

Unless there's a compelling reason why a new forum should be created (e.g., Space Travel) I'd like to see consolidation rather than balkanization, and my voting would reflect that principle.

If we slice and dice the myriad of information on FT too thin, we'll only learn what we think we want to know; and not necessarily what we'd truly like to learn.

Compare, if you will, the old library card catalogs to the modern search engine. One allows you to stumble across random new books and ideas on your way to what was of interest. The other helps you find precisely what you want, and little else.

More catalog. More cowbell. That is the FT way.