http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...&postcount=301

I felt this discussion worthy of a new thread and saw no point derailing the thread in which the quote was made but wanted to direct it to the OP and any other TB member who wished to reply.

While it wouldn't be the first ship that had sailed that I missed, is it official TB policy or only OP's opinion that further segmentation into right-sized communities of FT is necessary? What exactly is a right-sized community and how would it be measured or quantified? Is 6 posts per month right-sized? Could those 6 posts have been included elsewhere in a larger perhaps more multi-purpose forum? Once forums are created does it matter how much or how little traffic that forum generates? Is there a maximum number of forums TB members could imagine in a greater segmented FT?

I have shared some of my feelings on the subject on recent TB threads but wanted to set them aside to try and see the matter from other POV's and so would appreciate any input but am most curious to hear from TB members.

Thank you.

I personally do not have any quantitative metrics for forum creation/closure, nor I see an ideal number of forums for FlyerTalk.

If there's a demonstrated need for a new forum and it makes good sense for FlyerTalk, then I will likely support such a new forum request. The same goes for underperforming forums as far as their removal is concerned.

I don't think that fixed, quantitative metrics are a good way to effect forum creation/closure. All such metrics will do is encourage people to game the system, something that FlyerTalkers are pros at.

Let me clarify and amplify:

Firstly, this is my opinion only and other flyertalkers and talkboard members may feel differently.

But a decade ago when I started posting I loved the simplicity of Flyertalk. There was United, Sheraton (Starwood hadn't started as I recall) and everything else went in 'The Buzz.'

But that little town grew and goodness knows there were growing pains. There was sprawl that was managed by creating subcategories for travel issues. Then we had to bring in cops to patrol the streets and a city council to manage the growth. But growth and sprawl continued. I hated it. I hated how I used to be able to keep up with every thread on FT, but as things got segmented out I felt like I was missing stuff. I actually took a little break from FT in 2004.

But when I got over the need to know and read every thread on FT, I came back and found that an amazing thing had occured: instead of there being a single 'FlyerTalk community' there were many communities, sort of 'FlyerTalk neighborhoods' each with their unique personality and quirks: the UA folks, the community clique, the OMNIvores, the BA Bowery, the Womens travel circle, the TSAhatas, etc.

To me, this 'segmentation' allowed the community spirit that makes FT so unique to continue to thrive in spite of FT's phenomenal growth and success. Previous TBs have tacitly acknowledged this phenomenon by continuing to expand FT forums based on a 'know it when you see it' basis of "need" plus "critical mass" plus "potential."

Creating these sub-communities is more of an art than a science, but with only a few notable exceptions all of the TBs have done a pretty good job of judging when an idea/time is right for a new sub-community.

So every time I see a poster say, 'That's just going to segment us further,' my first thought is 'I know how you feel,' but my second thought is, 'but that's exactly the point.'

Again, all IMHO and OTBMMFD!

Is it possible to show demonstrated need for a new forum that makes sense for FT without any actual FT posts/threads on the topic?

That's pretty tough to do, though not impossible. Why would there be no FT posts/threads on such a topic?

Because posters feel there is no place for them to go?

Out of curiosity, have any forums actually been closed due to inactivity/low activity?

I've seen forums archived as their programs were discontinued or combined with another FF program, but I don't think there have been any forums shuttered due to low/no activity. That doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future, however...

Just curious. On the one hand, you say you don't have metric goals for forums. On the other, you say you want demonstrated need. So I was wondering if need can be demonstrated without posts/threads, as posts/threads are quantifiable and thus are *gasp* metrics.

There is no set *integer* number of posts/threads that will trigger forum creation/deletion for me. In other words, for me, need should be demonstrated, but I'm not going to automatically recommend a forum be created just because there are X posts in Y threads about the matter. Defining X and Y just opens the door for abuse, i.e. junk post padding/thread starting.

Hope that clears things up for you. @:-)