sophiegirl

I, too, respectfully disagree with the closure of this forum. For the people it serves, it has a value - ACTUAL EXPERIENCE is what makes this forum (and IMO all of FT) a valuable resource.

I agree with other posters, too - as we age, perhaps it will become more visited, and I certainly could use it to help plan for my parents travel. (which I never thought of, thanks attorney28).

I suppose I am naive, but (unless there is a truly inappropriate topic/response), I rarely understand why people lobby for a thread or forum to be closed. If you have no reason to read a forum - don't.

Space is the only reason I can see for closure one of the less frequently visited forums. Since that does not appear to be an issue, what is served by closing any of our smaller, more specialized forums?

If we want to set new criteria moving forward to BEGIN a forum, that is different. Otherwise, the term "grandfathered" comes to mind.....

Jenbel

I'm going to bump this again. Sadly, this forum is stagnating and going nowhere. Here are the number of threads which have been started in it since it was created in May:

May: 11
Jun: 3
July: 4 (1 of which was OT and moved elsewhere)
August: 0
Sep: 2 (this thread suggesting it be closed was started in September, which meant it got a bit of a profile boost)
Oct: 3
Nov: 2
Dec: 0 (profile boost effect negated)
Jan: 1

How can a forum continue without threads? That's the lifeblood for any forum. Unless there are things to discuss, questions being asked, things being debated, how can any forum be considered at all successful?

Rudi

thanks for the statistics of new threads

my personal judgement is more based on

1) lurkers = how many people are interested and look into existing threads/posts
2) posted opinions of current forum users
3) future potential of a currently still low traffic forum (we all get older, slowly but surely)
4) estimation of positiv / negativ effects on FlyerTalk if closing or not closing a/this forum

last but for me (as a FlyerTalk Oldie = Senior/Veteran) not least: a 'historic' FT look back: my (sometimes now a little bit failing = senior moments) memory 10 years back 'tells' me that no forum for a whole year in the first year of FlyerTalk had the traffic (number of lurkers) that this forum has now.

BiziBB

Good luck, TB.
With only 24 threads total, you can examine the evidence pretty quickly, before the lobbying from various interest groups occurs.

I don't use it and wouldn't miss it.
If not enough people are using and contributing to this forum (let's say a core group who can post and discuss interesting news and tools), then why not get someone to manage it as a wiki or a master thread?

I agree with Jenbel the key is use - viable threads, regulars, news, stuff to attract a returning user base.

But then again, there may well be other forums I don't frequent, with just as little use, but are less controversial as they are long-established. Cruises?

This thread will likely dwarf the Seniors Forum for page views and replies, so that's another anthropological study.

tcook052

And I completely agree and have always maintained many stagnant forums wasn't to the benefit of FT IMHO.

NickB

Large number of lurkers and close to non-existent level of threads suggests that there might be a case for a sticky/FAQ, not for a forum.

cblaisd

Thank you, Jenbel, for returning this to the top.

Another metric might be this:

Since its inception, there have been 304 posts. 115 of those (38%) are by the same three members or former members of FlyerTalk.

Moreover, this forum simply adds to the increasing problem of finding information on FT: if you want to get info about senior fares on, say, Italian trains, now you have to "just know" that you're supposed to check out the Senior Travel, Budget Travel, Italy, and European Rail forums.

Let's lessen the problem just a tiny bit, and shutter this forum.

obscure2k

I agree. "115 of those (38%) are by the same three members or former members of FlyerTalk."
is a compelling argument. I believe that the 38% of these posters could add their input elsewhere on FT and, most likely, have a more broad-based readership. All of those posts could be posted elsewhere on FT. The backers of the Senior Forum had good intentions. Alas, their good intentions did not come to fruition. I am beginning to believe that a "Men's Travel" Forum might be a logical replacement, should TB remove the Senior Travel Forum.

Spiff

Or not.

lin821

If TB would move what you had suggested, I would guess Men's Travel Forum to attract much more traffice than Seniors Forum. More than the status quo, to say at least. I would also imagine a Men's Travel Forum would soon ended up like an OMNI spinoff forum, following OMNI/PR. Did "OMNI for Men" ring the bell?

Seriously, back to the topic. It's hard to dispute the underperforming element of Seniors Travel. It may be a good idea for this TB to come up with a set of criteria/measure on fora underformance, through the enlightenment of Seniors Travel Forum.

Some topics can be well served as stickies. FT surely doesn't need that many fora, such as the dating one, to get busier. Logically reorganize FT and make it less cluttered should be the way to go.

skywalkerLAX

I would call it: "The FT regulars table"

Seriously, I had msn chats with more participants than the count of those who are active in this specific forum.

trekkie

i think its pretty obvious that the purpose of closing the relevant sub-forum is for ease of administation.

Perhaps the questions that need to be asked is:

1) why was the forum created in the first place?
2) is the purpose for closing the forum due to irrelevancy?
3) Are the purposes served the forum adequately addressed by existing sub-forums.

also, closing the forum would cause readers to shun flyertalk. I'm not sure Internt brands would be comfortable with that since their income generating source is from advertising and less readers means less advertising.

If the reason is irrelevany, then maybe another forum should be shut totally and replaced with a forum for contact directly with Internet brands.

Rationalising closure with low traffic reasons appears to be an administrative reason. Maybe more volunteer ethical moderators can be solicited instead.

Jenbel

trekkie, as someone who voted to open the original forum, I voted for it because I was convinced by the arguments some members made that there was demand for it. Unfortunately, that demand has failed to materialise.

You say that some members will leave if the forum is removed. Well, they aren't posting in the forum.... The vast majority of posts come from 2-3 individuals. I did some analysis, which showed that only around 15 people (at the time of the analysis) had more than (IIRC, since the spreadsheet is on another PC) 3-4 posts in the forum. Closing this forum is not going to have members leaving in droves, since hardly anyone uses it.

trekkie

posts only come from registered readers. I'm not sure about view counts but my opinion is that the view count does not necessary constitute readers who read while not logged in.

When you refer to demand, your statements above indicate you are using posts as benchmark. Is that really appropriate as opposed to views?

If i were internet brands, my main concern is readership and viewership. And that would coincide with catering for as many segments as possible. Oviously, there has to be some structure. But closing a forum because of perceived low traffic begs the question why did the forum exist in the first place? If its because of demand, then the demand for freebies forum would definately be warranted but we don't have such a forum.

And i would definately welcome a complaints forum against certain group of personalities here. But we don't have it for obvious reasons.

so besides demand reasons, why did the forum exist in the first place?

Rudi

I asked the TalkBoard members to consider (to propose to Randy) such a new forum.

The TalkBoard did discuss it, voted and proposed (to Randy) to introduce this Forum.

Randy did approve the TalkBoard proposition.