TalkBoard Topics - Forum Proposal: Travel&Dining: Destination >> The World: Korea

I propose a forum for Korea in the Travel&Dining: Destination >> The World >> Korea

Although majority of the travelers pass through South Korea, lucky few can venture in to North Korea as well. Plus, Asiana and Korean Airlines has been represented in the Airline Programs Forum with regular traffic. I believe Korea forum is long overdue.

Highlights??

- Home of 2 Award Winning Legacy Airlines: Asiana and Korean Airlines
- Home of one of the best airport in the world: ICN
- Top 10 passenger traffic in the world: ICN
- Top 5 air cargo traffic in the world: ICN
- 12th largest economy in the world.
- Home to best beef dishes in the world: Bulgogi and Galbi. :D

Coincidentally I'm planning a trip there next year so support the proposal as made. ;)

Coincidentally I'm planning a trip there next year so support the proposal as made. ;)
:eek: :eek: :eek:

The sky is falling!!!

;)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

The sky is falling!!!

;)

Does that mean You support this?

I believe Korea forum is long overdue.

Highlights??

- Home of 2 Award Winning Legacy Airlines: Asiana and Korean Airlines
- Home of one of the best airport in the world: ICN
- Top 10 passenger traffic in the world: ICN
- Top 5 air cargo traffic in the world: ICN
- 12th largest economy in the world.
- Home to best beef dishes in the world: Bulgogi and Galbi. :D

I agree, I'd like to see a Korea Forum as well.^

Nine of the past 120 posts in the Asia forum were (based on subject lines) about Korea, and that includes one asking whether one should stop over there or in Taipei en route to Bali. It appears to be at best third, behind Cambodia and Vietnam, in FT interest. I'm not a TalkBoard member and don't vote on these decisions, but as an FTer it would seem to me that there should be more of an indication of interest before we fragment the forums further and thus decrease traffic in each of the pieces.

Nine of the past 120 posts in the Asia forum were (based on subject lines) about Korea, and that includes one asking whether one should stop over there or in Taipei en route to Bali. It appears to be at best third, behind Cambodia and Vietnam, in FT interest. I'm not a TalkBoard member and don't vote on these decisions, but as an FTer it would seem to me that there should be more of an indication of interest before we fragment the forums further and thus decrease traffic in each of the pieces.

I think the reason for this is that there are so much jungle of information in the Asian forum that most Korea related questions are asked in the Mileage Forum.

I propose a forum for Korea in the Travel&Dining: Destination >> The World >> Korea

Although majority of the travelers pass through South Korea, lucky few can venture in to North Korea as well. Plus, Asiana and Korean Airlines has been represented in the Airline Programs Forum with regular traffic. I believe Korea forum is long overdue.

Highlights??

- Home of 2 Award Winning Legacy Airlines: Asiana and Korean Airlines
- Home of one of the best airport in the world: ICN
- Top 10 passenger traffic in the world: ICN
- Top 5 air cargo traffic in the world: ICN
- 12th largest economy in the world.
- Home to best beef dishes in the world: Bulgogi and Galbi. :D

Plus many World Heritage listed sites!

I think the reason for this is that there are so much jungle of information in the Asian forum that most Korea related questions are asked in the Mileage Forum.

Actually, the Asiana forum answers a lot of Korea questions.

As per skchin's request, I also give a support to this proposal.

Does that mean You support this?

No.

I support. If you are passing through you should stop for a few days. Avoid Monday though - as museums are closed on Monday. Nice people - worth a visit.

Thanks for the comments here thus far.

And hopefully even more FT'ers will add their opinions to those above.

Home of your plasma TVs and automobiles: Samsung, LG, Daewoo, Hyundai, KIA...

I like the idea !

Will follow the discussion a bit more !

skchin, should I forget you can gladly shoot me a PM when theres more in the hotpot ;)

I believe Korea forum is long overdue.
I have to respectfully disagree.

Highlights??

- Home of 2 Award Winning Legacy Airlines: Asiana and Korean Airlines
Airline discussion belongs to airline forums.
- Home of one of the best airport in the world: ICN
Unlike NRT in Japan Forum, there isn't as many questions/threads about ICN in Asia Forum.
- Top 10 passenger traffic in the world: ICN
FWIW, passenger traffic doesn't equate to FT traffic.
- Top 5 air cargo traffic in the world: ICN
FT isn't about cargo traffic.
- 12th largest economy in the world.
Flyertalk is not economist-talk. There is quite some economy talk in OMNI/PR but most is not Korea-centered. ;)

Home of your plasma TVs and automobiles: Samsung, LG, Daewoo, Hyundai, KIA...
Although true, I doubt FTers are visiting Korea to buy Samsung, LG, Daewoo, Hyundai, KIA.... IIRC, folks don't fly to Korea to get good-priced electronics/appliance/phones/cars...etc. They have other countries/places in Asia (such as HK, Singapore, China, even Thailand...etc) in mind. BTW, all the named places/countries have their (sub)forums and FTers' demand/traffic supports them.

Besides, how is that related to miles/points/travel discussion other than charging to your miles/point earning credit cards?

I'm not a TalkBoard member and don't vote on these decisions, but as an FTer it would seem to me that there should be more of an indication of interest before we fragment the forums further and thus decrease traffic in each of the pieces.
I totally agree. Comparatively speaking, FTers show more interests in Southeast Asia countries than Korea.

Personally, I haven't seen that much discussion threads to substantiate a standalone Korea Forum.

These are just few sample key words used. The numbers shows there is interest level that supports a stand-alone Korea Travel forum.


Total: 1897 threads
458 threads containing "Seoul"
391 threads containing "Korea"
496 threads containing "Korean"
496 threads containing "ICN"
56 threads containing "Incheon"

Total: 3016 posts
497 posts containing "Seoul"
490 posts containing "Korea"
500 posts containing "Korean"
500 posts containing "ICN"
492 posts containing "Incheon"
362 posts containing "Kimchi"
175 posts containing "Bulgogi"

Speaking of stats, are all those threads mutually exclusive? (I guess not)

If not, your math is off.

The numbers shows there is interest level that supports a stand-alone Korea Travel forum.


Total: 1897 threads
458 threads containing "Seoul"
391 threads containing "Korea"
496 threads containing "Korean"
496 threads containing "ICN"
56 threads containing "Incheon"

Total: 3016 posts
497 posts containing "Seoul"
490 posts containing "Korea"
500 posts containing "Korean"
500 posts containing "ICN"
492 posts containing "Incheon"
362 posts containing "Kimchi"
175 posts containing "Bulgogi"

The numbers shows there is interest level that supports a stand-alone Korea Travel forum.



One thread about Korea in the last two weeks clearly demonstrates that there is not an unmet need for a Korea forum.

One thread about Korea in the last two weeks clearly demonstrates that there is not an unmet need for a Korea forum.

Have you tried searching for just "korea" or other words subjecating (is this even a word?) Korea?

There are several factors that I would consider when deciding whether to recommend creation of a new forum or removal of an existing forum:

1. Post count. How many posts have there been that fit into the forum?

2. Passion. Are there enough passionate advocates who would use the forum? Passionate users are the life of any forum, and you need perhaps a dozen highly active contributors to really keep the ball rolling. Otherwise interest tails off and the forum essentially dies.

3. Alternative. Do the posts in question have a reasonably good home in the absence of a forum?

4. Fragmentation. Would creating this forum drop any of the alternative forums below critical pass, potentially leading to two dead forums rather than one live forum?

I'd appreciate any and all help here in answering these four questions.

Have you tried searching for just "korea" or other words subjecating (is this even a word?) Korea?

Yes and I found that "Korea" threads are running about 5 per month, just over one per week.

I do support for this whole idea. I know it won't be that active as Argentina or Japan, but I'm sure it will be very useful for those visiting this country. In Asiana and Korean air forum, there are tons of threads like "I have 10 hour layover at ICN, what can I do?" <= This one should be a sticky once this forum opens.

I support. South? North?

How can I vote?

Never mind. I figured it out.

I think most of the posts about bulgogi are probably from me...

I think i'll go out for some right now!

I think most of the posts about bulgogi are probably from me...

I think i'll go out for some right now!

Just had some. Gotta love YVR as pendant to authentic Korean cuisine ! ^

A great example of a forum that may or may not succeed, with some TB members not willing to give it a chance.

There needs to be a way to create the forum, evaluate it for 6 months or so, and eliminate it if the traffic isn't high enough.

There needs to be a way to create the forum, evaluate it for 6 months or so, and eliminate it if the traffic isn't high enough.

The "eliminate it" part has proven to be the most difficult. I'm open to any and all suggestions on this. The problem I see is that objective criteria such as post count and thread count are easy to manipulate. If there's one thing FT'ers are great at, it's gaming the system. If the criteria are subjective, we face the hurdle of a 2/3 vote to eliminating the underperforming forum.

Here's one possible method to achieve what you want. The TalkBoard could pass a recommendation for creating a forum for 6 months only, after which its threads would be moved to another specified forum. If a new recommendation to make the forum permanent were not approved within 6 months, the FT Host (Randy) would act on the original recommendation to close the forum.

I will ask the rest of the TalkBoard if they are interested in trying this approach for the next borderline situation. It shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 tries to come up with a template that achieves the desired result. That's not the problem. The problem is whether routine creation of temporary forums is good for FT. I am skeptical that it is.

Rich, how about posting a persuasive argument that creation of temporary forums is good for FT, along with your opinion of what the perceived probability of success ought to be before the TalkBoard recommends a 6-month trial. I'm very interested in your rationale for your opinion on the probability threshold.

The "eliminate it" part has proven to be the most difficult. I'm open to any and all suggestions on this. The problem I see is that objective criteria such as post count and thread count are easy to manipulate. If there's one thing FT'ers are great at, it's gaming the system. If the criteria are subjective, we face the hurdle of a 2/3 vote to eliminating the underperforming forum.

Here's one possible method to achieve what you want. The TalkBoard could pass a recommendation for creating a forum for 6 months only, after which its threads would be moved to another specified forum. If a new recommendation to make the forum permanent were not approved within 6 months, the FT Host (Randy) would act on the original recommendation to close the forum.

I will ask the rest of the TalkBoard if they are interested in trying this approach for the next borderline situation. It shouldn't take more than 2 or 3 tries to come up with a template that achieves the desired result. That's not the problem. The problem is whether routine creation of temporary forums is good for FT. I am skeptical that it is.

Rich, how about posting a persuasive argument that creation of temporary forums is good for FT, along with your opinion of what the perceived probability of success ought to be before the TalkBoard recommends a 6-month trial. I'm very interested in your rationale for your opinion on the probability threshold.

1%? Why have such a high admission price? The Accor forum proposal really annoy me for some reason. Part of the reason, I think, is that Americans look at Accor as a substandard brand. I mean, I don't stay at a Motel 6, so why would anyone else want to do business with Accor? It's the American-centric mindset that sometimes is overplayed around here (in my opinion), but in this case I think is right on the money.

I think the gaming the system argument is only semi-valid. If people post ON TOPIC items in these forums, it doesn't matter if the posts are there to keep the board going or not. We game the systems for points and miles and status levels and the airlines know this and it doesn't really change policy.

All boards should have regular (at least every six months) review.

All boards should have objective criteria in place (number of threads and posts) -- for boards under those numbers, we would have a thread started (by policy) in both the private and public TB boards calling for discussion.

The only difficulty I see is getting 2/3 vote to eliminate the forums. Personally, I would have no problems deleting forums that are not used, but I still say that the only way to determine whether a forum is really viable is to give such a forum a chance and to promote via TalkMail, announcements, and stickies.

Once a forum is created there should be no sacred cows, either. Forums shouldn't get special status because of the subject matter. If 100 posts in a forum is too few for Accor (for example) it should be too few for all forums.

As for a formal proposal, well, that will have to wait to see how the election turns out. If I am seated, it will be the one of the first things on my agenda. :D

1%? Why have such a high admission price?

IMHO, having a proliferation of temporary forums that fail to make the grade will confuse FT newbies. People will find a forum through web search, and a week or a month later it's gone. If the forum doesn't have a really good chance of continuing, creating it and then removing it only served to confuse some members and annoy others. That's why I don't think that the TalkBoard should promiscuously create new forums, even if they were easily closed. But, as I said, I am open to persuasive arguments to the contrary.

BTW, there is another problem with numerical criteria for forums. Some forums are useful even at a low post count because the focus of the forum is so tight and because there is no other good home for the information. If it were easy to come up with numerical criteria, someone would have already done so.

IMHO, having a proliferation of temporary forums that fail to make the grade will confuse FT newbies. People will find a forum through web search, and a week or a month later it's gone. If the forum doesn't have a really good chance of continuing, creating it and then removing it only served to confuse some members and annoy others. That's why I don't think that the TalkBoard should promiscuously create new forums, even if they were easily closed. But, as I said, I am open to persuasive arguments to the contrary.

BTW, there is another problem with numerical criteria for forums. Some forums are useful even at a low post count because the focus of the forum is so tight and because there is no other good home for the information. If it were easy to come up with numerical criteria, someone would have already done so.

Personally, I think it also protects pet forums (and I don't mean travel with pets, obviously). The objective criteria doesn't have to mean removal, but it should highlight forums for further analysis by TB.

If the forum doesn't have a really good chance of continuing, creating it and then removing it only served to confuse some members and annoy others. That's why I don't think that the TalkBoard should promiscuously create new forums, even if they were easily closed.
+1

BTW, there is another problem with numerical criteria for forums. Some forums are useful even at a low post count because the focus of the forum is so tight and because there is no other good home for the information.
Exactly. Religious Travelers Forum is the perfect example. Quantitative formula is not all that matters.

IMHO, qualitative measures are as important as quantitative ones when evaluating or assessing the creation or closure of any forum on FT. The bottom line for any forum to have a chance to succeed is to have enough FTers or FT traffic. Remember what happened to Senior Travel Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/915747-update-motion-adopted-close-senior-travel-forum.html), which didn't survive with only a handful of regular participants.

I am just not sure if Korea is the best candidate for the next Asia country to have a standalone destination forum on FT. I haven't seen enough "evidence" provided by OP or fellow supporters to justify the (unmet) FT demands yet.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not actually taking a stand on the creation of the Korea forum here. This post is just discussing my general thoughts on new forums in response to some of the points nsx has brought up.

Here's one possible method to achieve what you want. The TalkBoard could pass a recommendation for creating a forum for 6 months only, after which its threads would be moved to another specified forum. If a new recommendation to make the forum permanent were not approved within 6 months, the FT Host (Randy) would act on the original recommendation to close the forum.

Exactly what I was thinking: a sunset clause. I think it's a good compromise between those who support new forum trials and those who have a more conservative approach.

IMHO, having a proliferation of temporary forums that fail to make the grade will confuse FT newbies. People will find a forum through web search, and a week or a month later it's gone. If the forum doesn't have a really good chance of continuing, creating it and then removing it only served to confuse some members and annoy others. That's why I don't think that the TalkBoard should promiscuously create new forums, even if they were easily closed. But, as I said, I am open to persuasive arguments to the contrary.

I don't know--I think you may be overestimating the level of confusion and annoyance closing a forum causes. The worst I see happening is the posts get moved back into whatever forum the discussion would have been happening anyway (in this case, the Asia forum). After the close, there are really only three groups of affected users (I'll use this one as an example):

*People seeking discussion on Korea. They'll just be back to square one (the current situation), finding and posting in the Asia forum. To them, it will never have been an issue. (They may not even realize a Korea forum had ever been created.)
*Existing users posting in the Korea forum. Their existing subscribed threads will simply be moved back to the Asia forum, and plenty of notice will be given in the Korea forum of the pending close and movement so they'll know to head to the Asia forum to find further discussion (beyond their already-existing subscribed threads). The most inconvenience to them will be having to (if they want to) modify their forum subscriptions to include the Asia forum instead of the Korea forum, which isn't really a negative, because they'll have benefited from the use of the Korea forum while it existed.
*Users interested in and posting in the Asia forum but not the Korea forum. They'll see a very slight bump in traffic as topics involving Korea will then be introduced into their forum. This isn't a negative, either, as if the Korea forum had never been created, they'd have those topics in there anyway.

As long as the forum navigation is properly updated, I don't think there'd be any harm or confusion. (Actually, if you ask me, the navigation in the T&D forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-dining-161/) is kind of messy--I think it might do well to clean it up a bit; in fact, a friend of mine who is new to FT commented that FT's overall navigation is confusing and thinks we should adopt something like Gaia Online (http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/)'s forum home screen, where sub-forums are more graphically grouped underneath large, easy-to-read subject headings.)

I'll admit it would be a little more difficult to deal with a subject (such as Senior Travelers) that may not be easily merged into a "parent" forum, and I'll admit I'm not super familiar with how past forum closures have been handled and received by the community. I'd have to look at that issue in more detail before coming to a position on that.

BTW, there is another problem with numerical criteria for forums. Some forums are useful even at a low post count because the focus of the forum is so tight and because there is no other good home for the information. If it were easy to come up with numerical criteria, someone would have already done so.

It's going to necessarily be subjective, and numbers won't always, as you indicate, be a good metric. That's why a review by TalkBoard initiated by a sunset clause makes the most sense: it allows the TalkBoard to make a judgment call as to the viability of the forum without the pressure or fear of looking bad by pushing to close forums (which will invariably make a vocal group angry). In other words, it turns the decision into a choice with either a neutral (no action: close) or a positive (vote to keep open) choice, whereas the decision to make a motion to close an "under-performing" forum is publicly viewed as an option involving either a neutral (no action: stay open) or negative (vote to close) choice.

+1


Exactly. Religious Travelers Forum is the perfect example. Quantitative formula is not all that matters.


The perfect example of a sacred cow. Why should this exist if the number of posts is as low as what we'd have in another forum?

Oh, right. Religion is *special*.

The perfect example of a sacred cow. Why should this exist if the number of posts is as low as what we'd have in another forum?

Oh, right. Religion is *special*.

Start a new thread, recommend closure.

I'm willing to listen, but not in the context of piggybacking on other forums' creation or closure.

I see zero reason for a Korea specific forum.

I don't think there is unmet demand and/or interest.

I see zero reason for a Korea specific forum.

I don't think there is unmet demand and/or interest.

Do you have any reasons to support your recommendation? We currently have 2 Korea-based airlines in the mileage forum which has regular followings. FT also has numerous cultural and culinary inquiries that can base the establishiment of the Korean travel forum.

Start a new thread, recommend closure.

I'm willing to listen, but not in the context of piggybacking on other forums' creation or closure.

Perfect example of "sacred cow" mentality. A dozen posts could be just fine for one forum but not for another. Personally, I have no problem with lightly-used forums -- it's the idea that some forums are better than others based on the subject matter / topic that bothers me. I wouldn't close *either* forum unless there was simply *no* traffic.

Applying 1980s "waste of bandwidth" arguments to FT is really silly. I'm sure most people use "MyFlyerTalk" to navigate (and if not, should -- and if they don't know how to do this, just ask) and subscribe to the forums they wish to look at.

A FTer would never have to look at a Korea forum if they don't wish to. However, if I was planning on flying through ICN and having a stopover, I would seek out a Korea forum as part of my planning efforts. Instead I have to look through an Asia forum and hope that vBulletin search doesn't suck as much as it usually does. That's OK, I guess, but I guess I just don't buy into the entire "fragmentation" argument. We aren't coming in on 300 baud modems, anymore.

Perfect example of "sacred cow" mentality. A dozen posts could be just fine for one forum but not for another. Personally, I have no problem with lightly-used forums -- it's the idea that some forums are better than others based on the subject matter / topic that bothers me. I wouldn't close *either* forum unless there was simply *no* traffic.

Applying 1980s "waste of bandwidth" arguments to FT is really silly. I'm sure most people use "MyFlyerTalk" to navigate (and if not, should -- and if they don't know how to do this, just ask) and subscribe to the forums they wish to look at.

A FTer would never have to look at a Korea forum if they don't wish to. However, if I was planning on flying through ICN and having a stopover, I would seek out a Korea forum as part of my planning efforts. Instead I have to look through an Asia forum and hope that vBulletin search doesn't suck as much as it usually does. That's OK, I guess, but I guess I just don't buy into the entire "fragmentation" argument. We aren't coming in on 300 baud modems, anymore.

Not at all.

I refuse to consider post counts/threads as the only metric for forum opening closure. Stating a minimum simply encourages junk posting - I've stated this many times.

I am not going to apply announced quantitative methods to this issue. Period.

If you or anyone else wants to close Religious Travelers forum, start a new thread and make a case. To me in this thread, such requests are just noise, unrelated to the issue at hand.

It's not a bandwidth issue. It's pigeonholing information, particularly small quantities of it, in places where only a small number of people will see it. That's what is meant by further fragmenting FT.

Not at all.

I refuse to consider post counts/threads as the only metric for forum opening closure. Stating a minimum simply encourages junk posting - I've stated this many times.

I am not going to apply announced quantitative methods to this issue. Period.

If you or anyone else wants to close Religious Travelers forum, start a new thread and make a case. To me in this thread, such requests are just noise, unrelated to the issue at hand.

It's not a bandwidth issue. It's pigeonholing information, particularly small quantities of it, in places where only a small number of people will see it. That's what is meant by further fragmenting FT.

I guess we'll just continue to agree to disagree. No biggy, really.

One thread about Korea in the last two weeks clearly demonstrates that there is not an unmet need for a Korea forum.

I refuse to consider post counts/threads as the only metric for forum opening closure. Stating a minimum simply encourages junk posting - I've stated this many times.

So if I'm reading you correctly you're saying there aren't enough threads about Korea elsewhere on FT yet while at the same time saying you're unwilling to use a post count metric to consider forum creation or closure.

FWIW I have long fussed and fought about FT fragmentation and was constantly met with the reply that FT had grown into a larger community with a rainbow of interests that we were all free to use or not but I would rather see these types of destination forums added ahead of special interest forums. Just MHO of course.

So if I'm reading you correctly you're saying there aren't enough threads about Korea elsewhere on FT yet while at the same time saying you're unwilling to use a post count metric to consider forum creation or closure.

Yup, just like pr0n: I know it when I see it.

It's not just N posts or M threads. It's quality, relevance, consideration as to whether a post/thread is part of a junk posting effort to open/save from closure... I refuse to quantify this.

Yup, just like pr0n: I know it when I see it.

So all of the people posting here are really just talking to themselves then, since you are simply going to "know it when you see it"?

So all of the people posting here are really just talking to themselves then, since you are simply going to "know it when you see it"?

They may help me find it! :)

However, at the moment in this case, I don't think it's there...

I think Spiff is a closet supporter of Korean Forum. He is just against it for the sake of argument to build on this thread.

I refuse to quantify this.

Got it; there just aren't enough threads about Korea to justify forum creation, though we don't apply a specific metric to forum creation anyway.

You're welcome.

I've been very forthcoming in my reasons for being against both a Korea and a SAA forum at this time.

There are 8 other TalkBoard members that might feel differently about one or both of these topics. Perhaps instead of posting the same complaints over and over again, you might try appealing to them? Or doing things to raise the traffic in the current forums for Korea?

I want to see more of a demonstrated need in both cases. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Spiff, I hope you don't mind me transposing your comments to this thread.
I supose couple hints on how to raise traffic in topics related to Korea would be nice. Any hints?

Spiff, I hope you don't mind me transposing your comments to this thread.
I supose couple hints on how to raise traffic in topics related to Korea would be nice. Any hints?

For one, relevant threads could be started in the existing forums. These threads ought to be something that the OP is actually interested in discussing rather than just junk threads with the word 'Korea' or similar in them and shouldn't be a duplicate for existing material. From there, hopefully some good, relevant discussion will follow from a number of other interested parties. If the same 5 people post their thoughts about Korea in several threads, it's really not a good indicator of the need of a new forum, in my opinion. However, when new people start new threads and more new people join the discussions, the demonstrated need for a new forum becomes more apparent.

I hope that helps! :)

Dear Talkboard members,

Can we bring this issue to a vote?

Dear Talkboard members,

Can we bring this issue to a vote?

Why? What has changed, other than the clock/calendar, since the last time you requested one?

Dear Talkboard members,

Can we bring this issue to a vote?

No voting can happen without a motion.

Please allow me to quote myself from another thread:

Just to clarify, there's nothing for any TBer to vote on yet.

What we've seen is the OP made a proposal but (the current) TB hasn't come up with a motion to vote on yet. ;)

You need to bring at least 2 TBers on board (i.e. one to make a motion in the private TB forum and the other to second) before you can get the ball rolling.