Canarsie

Not only did the new smoking forum actually receive coverage in the TalkMail newsletter — it was the top story, in fact — as soon as possible after it was launched; but it also received coverage in the issue immediately prior to the official vote on whether or not that forum should be created.

goalie

Bolding mine: And I'm curious as to why folks would/might "hate" the forum. Are they upset that it is about places to smoke and they are anti-smoking? That is not what the forum is about and that is stated in the forum posting guidelines and it's just like an establishment which allows smoking-if you smoke or are not bothered by cigarette/cigar smoke, you enter but if you you don't smoke or are bothered by the smoke, you don't enter-but as long as the establishment is not violating the law by allowing smoking when it is prohibited, you don't picket demanding the establishment be closed.

Bolding mine: Very well said ^

SkiAdcock

While there aren't a gazillion threads (and looking at the forum that seems to be due to organizational), the threads there have views ranging from 100 to well over 1,000 views. I think in this case # of views shows there's an interest in the threads in the forum/are indeed probably helpful to smokers.

Cheers.

bdschobel

Beats me. But some people quite clearly see red every time they think about the smokers' forum. Apparently, where there's smoke, there's fire!
I totally agree.

Bruce

tcook052

I'm curious why anyone who raises questions about lightly used forums of any kind is accused of 'hating' them as that seems a very narrow-minded, overly simplistic and just plain wrong assumption.

goalie

I didn't accuse anyone of "hating"-I was simply quoting another member's post where the word "hate" was used and simply asked why someone might "hate" a forum

bdschobel

I used the word "HATE" with respect to hypothetical people who may or may not exist in real life. It seems appropriate to me. Others may disagree or prefer a weaker word. Not a big deal either way.

A handful of people were strongly, perhaps even irrationally, opposed to the smokers' forum right from the start -- and now that it exists, they question the decision to establish it with exactly the same arguments that they espoused then. I have no urge to go through that debate all over again, and I won't.

Bruce

tcook052

Oh I know you didn't and meant others who used the word rather flippantly and dismissively to invalidate some member views shared in this forum. Seems holding TB accountable for its decisions and voicing some dissension automatically makes you an irrational hater which is too bad as I understood this forum was supposed to be for everyone to come and have their say on TB topics.

bdschobel

You need to read this again -- or, maybe, for the first time:Bruce

tom911

I was one that was for the creation of this forum during initial discussion and requested the Talk Board' include a CDC warning about the health effects of smoking in the forum description to deter teenage FTers from taking up this deadly habit. I provided a number of statistics about smoking deaths from the CDC website, particularly about the future health risks to teenagers that begin to smoke. Teenage smoking and iong term health issues of teenage smokers is something we should all be concerned about. We have teenage members on FT. I've run into them at FT events and some identify themselves as teenagers when talking about their parents travel or their travel with their parents. They're clearly enjoying FT.

Once the motion was crafted, though, it was clear the Talk Board didn't want to touch the topic of a CDC warning to teenage smokers or teenage smokers-to-be. At least one Talk Board member said that was something for others to worry about. Without that warning, yes, I did change my position and oppose the forum, and requested you come back to the table with a motion that would include a warning directed towards FT teens that might be on the line about taking up smoking.

Now that the forum is up and running, there seems to be very little demand after we were told of many threads across FT with smokers being harassed. Links to those threads were not provided and the forum questionnaire that I and others have referred members to over the years was not used. Without Dovster's 3 new posts after coming back from the RV trip this week, we're now up to 3 new threads the last six weeks. Where are all the FTers that needed this forum because they could not freely post across FT? Why can't members freely critique a forum that hasn't gained traction? If I want to respond to posts here, I'll continue to do so. If you'd rather not, that's O.K.

The bigger issue, though, is what is the current forum creation policy? I raised that issue during the discussion of a smokers forum. I asked this in another thread and not a single Talk Board member responded. The Talk Board questionnaire that has been used many times in the past was not used for this forum and I'm at a loss to understand why it wasn't and when it applies or doesn't apply for future forum requests.

Here's what I posted in another thread in response to a Talk Board member:

In that same thread another Talk Board member, kokonutz, posted the questionnaire:

So let's spin off the discussion away from the smoker's forum and onto the criteria for creation of new forums which is a much broader topic. Can this Talk Board come up with a written policy of its own on forum creation? Do you want to include "page views" as a criteria to determine if a forum is successful or whether one should be created, or as a criteria for eliminating forums?

If you don't want to use the questionnaire adopted by the 2009 Talk Board, and pointed to many times over the years for those requesting new forums, please come up with a new set of guidelines that any member can refer to when requesting a new forum or requesting a forum be closed. If the guidelines only apply some of the time, come out and say when they apply and when they don't apply. Come up with something that can be referred to any time there's a request for a new forum.

tcook052

I do? I thought it was directed at hypothetical people and not specific ones.

Completely agree.

cblaisd

I continue to wonder why the fixation on thread-count as the sole blunt instrument quantitiative measure of this or any forum.

If thread-count were the only metric needed, we wouldn't need the TalkBoard at all; the count could be done by software and then a forum automatically shuttered if it doesn't come up to that number.

But I, for one, assume the TalkBoard is there to use quantitative metrics as one among many criteria, and, in fact, those criteria may well be diferent for different sorts of forums. In other words, I look for the TalkBoard to have some wisdom and discernment and not just count, and intangible non-quantitative criteria ought to come into play in such discernment.

It's a credit to FT to have the Religious Travelers, Traveling With Pets, et al forums even though they don't have nearly the thread count of other forums. But they are worth having on other grounds, imo. That's the case with this forum, too, imo.

bdschobel

Reading comprehension fail: My post was directed at any readers. Why would I direct a post at hypothetical people, if I could even figure out how to do that? On the other hand, my post essentially speculated that people may exist who HATE the smokers' forum, and those people might want to run for TalkBoard so as to advocate termination of the hated forum.

I suggested that you read the post to better understand my position. Apparently, you read it but still don't understand me. Oh, well.

Bruce

tom911

I think tradition plays a part in that. I remember advocating for a Virgin America forum 7-8 years ago and one Talk Board member kept encouraging me to post links to threads appearing across the forums of FT, some in the Virgin Atlantic forum and others in places like Travel Buzz. I started with about 10 threads but that wasn't enough. He wouldn't tell me what the magic number of threads was to get a new forum, so it was basically "I'll know it when I see it" and that I should keep on posting links.

There still aren't any fixed metrics as to when we get a new forum, but the linking of threads in other forums to show demand dates back years. In some recent discussions, metrics don't come into play at all, so maybe it is time to no longer request those numbers/threads when trying to create a new forum. I don't know what you'd replace it with, though. What criteria would you use to create a South African Airways forum, for instance, if not metrics showing demand? A new transparent forum creation policy could address that.

The Talk Board also prepares an annual activity report to review underutilized forums, though I can't find a report for this year (the 2011-2104 reports are available). Metrics clearly factor into that report.

I don't care if they take metrics off the table, but if you're going to do that publish new forum creation criteria that we can all work with.

Mary2e

I smoke. I appreciate the forum, though I have not had reason to post. I think I did post about my use of nicotine lozenges on long flights.

However, in all my years on FT, I can attest to the insults hurled at smokers. Some people are polite about it, but I think many more are not. Just mention it in Travel Buzz and the haters come out of the woodwork.

The information IS valuable, and sometimes very hard to find in the destination/property forums. It may be out of date.

I don't get the zeal to get the forum closed down.