Spiff,

You asked for it buddy. . Here you go.

We can attempt to create criteria for a forum to be automatically labeled non-performing and be closed, but I think that would be a terrible mistake. That said I am all for the refinement of the list of fora, the content of the fora, and the organization of the fora. Naturally some will have to give way to others, or give up their place on the list if they become more noise than signal either by impartial measurement or human assessment.

As I have watched and participated in a few conversations on this topic of late I have become increasingly convinced that we need to stop trying to recreate the wheel and go with what works. By this I mean we must stop trying to come up with meaningful metrics that cause automatic closure. All metrics I have see discussed so far are at best value judgment based. Not so solid of a reason to have that be the basis for automatic existence cessation.

So what does work? Well what works is policing of things by the people. What works is having a duly elected body of representatives to field our recommendations. What works is having those representatives� interpretation and final choice stand until such time as the issue is revisited by a similarly created body of representatives with the authority to decide differently and replace previously made decisions. Well it works in the US (my home turf) and that is a new place based on a lot of much older places where it works more or less according to the same guiding ideas and I think we really need to realize that we have a position of luxury in that we can choose the best of the best in terms of rules that have been tried and tested.

So what am I proposing? Well I believe that the following procedure should take place if a forum is to be closed:

1. A recommendation to look at a forum as one which should be considered for closure.

This recommendation could come from any FT member to any TB member and the TB could then decide whether to have a vote to consider the forum for closure. If such a vote were, in the opinion of the TB, considered to be in the best interest of the membership of FT, the vote would proceed according to the rules in place. The content of the vote would be to close or not. If TB decided the issue raised was of such a nature that it warranted more time to make a better decision, a vote could be held to create a deadline by which a second vote, a vote on closure would occur.

2. If a forum were to receive a deadline vote (e.g. 6 months from the date of the vote before being examined again), he discussion thread would be closed and FT members would be expected to give it the fair chance they would expect of for a they might support themselves. The goal would be to allow the forum to thrive or not in a real environment.

3. If a vote were held on whether to close a forum and the vote was affirmative to do so, the forum would be closed with existing threads moved to places that the moderators agreed.

4. The forum vote result would be final both in the case of a defined holding period or in the case of closure.

5. If the vote is against closing it, the forum would be able to go on without being brought up for closure again for at least another year.

I see all of the above as very important because they mean we would trust the better judgment of those we voted into positions of authority to decide for us. We would, as the rules allow, have a chance for a week or so to discuss it openly. Ultimately however I believe it is the duty of the FT membership to support the system of government in place. This is not a democracy. This is Randy�s house and he said we could have a TB and therefore we need to play according to those rules. We do have great latitude in that we can comment, we can attempt to cause a forum to be rejuvenated, we can contribute ourselves. What we cannot do, as individuals, is decide that what is best for us is what is best for the group. It usually works the other way around.

So in a nutshell, I am suggesting or trying to communicate a suggestion of a system that allows anybody and everybody to discuss with the TB what they think should happen, and then they allow the TB to consider it during which time all can comment. Finally the membership must allow the TB to interpret the various input including number of posts, noise to signal ratio, status quo or merging, and a bunch of other yardsticks to decide to close, extend the existence temporarily, or give stamp approval to a forum. We hired these folks for a job and this is part of it. They have to be allowed to know their decisions will be trusted and in if we do that I believe they will feel and act upon a greater sense of responsibility leading to better decisions than if we create metrics to force actions on issues that may be more gray than black and white.

In fairness, I think that is generally what happens. However we have trouble going from the 'I think it's a good idea to close x' to 'We'll close x'.

As an elected body, sometimes it's hard to say no to members - no matter how few. I think it's something we need to get better at. We can say it when we don't want to create a forum, but for some reason it's harder to do when we need to close a forum.

I think it's a good plan overall, mjm.

However, as soon as a forum is put 'on notice', the number of junk posts and threads is probably going to go through the roof.

I think that any inspection of an underperforming forum should be done with less notice, if any, to prevent a "save this forum!" post/thread-padding spree.

No one has yet to explain to me how leaving a forum open is "detrimental" to the FT membership. It is not a bandwidth issue so what is the underlying issue? My view is that there are certain people who are upset that their "pet" forum did not get approved by the Talkboard... so they are against anyone else having their special interest forum.

If the Talkboard agreed at one time that a forum was in the interest of the membership, then let it stand. I would rather see us focus on how to make all forums more visible and drive traffic... not just when there is an announcement of a potential closure.

Besides, it is very hard to close a forum when it only takes 4 votes (normally) to kill such a motion.

First and foremost, imo, fragmentation: if you have a forum which is only frequented by a handful of persons, the answers which you will get in that forum will be from that handful of persons. A lot of knowledge that is there in FT will not benefit the poster, because many knowledgeable persons will not frequent that forum. And the answers which ARE posted will equally only benefit a handful of persons even though they may be useful to the wider FT community.

The problem is compounded by the potential snowballing effect, as A will argue: well, look there is already a forum on X. So why not a forum on Y? sounds familiar? It should: there are several posts of that kind in every thread that proposes a new forum on something marginal to FT. You could end up with a very large number of tiny fora with a minuscule audience to the point where it is completely unmanageable from a user point of view, as the visiblity of a particular forum diminishes as the number of fora grows.

A better idea against fragmentation would be to carefully decide whether to approve new forums for FT. The quality control should be made at this point. Numbers should not be the sole criteria to judge viability. If a forum has the potential for informing a segment of the FT community, we should be willing to consider it.

I am not a big fan of trying to decide which forums are underperforming and should be closed. Some topics are more specific in nature, but they deserve a place where people can share information without getting buried in a larger forum. I am glad to see additional forums for Asian countries and smaller loyalty programs (i.e. Choice Hotels) even though I do not participate in them.

Thanks mjm for this thread.
I don't know about you but TB seems to have a tough job in that it is usually the 'bad cop' with regards to disenfranchising a group at the request of another group on FT.
Occasionally the situation is reversed when some members make a convincing argument and TB approves a new forum.

What do you think of an automatic review of every new forum, timed to coincide with its first birthday? Thus TB could set reviews to occur as an agenda item around this time and to gather evidence and user feedback prior to the first anniversary.

I still think it is useful to have some metrics of use and information posting, even if it is just comparitive.
Then debate can focus qualitatively why the forum is beneficial on other grounds.

I would also like to know what is possible in terms of the forum statistics, in terms of being able to compare like for like forums within FT (where a 'like' forum exists). Perhaps an activity graph month by month? In some cases interest could be quite seasonal.

I hope these suggestions are helpful.

Well, really these are two sides of the same coin. What you are doing when creating a forum is exercising a judgment in advance as to whether (among other things) that forum will or will not be underperforming. Agreed that it is better not to create a forum that will fail than close it afterwards but hindsight is a wonderful thing. You might think that a forum would work and only realise later that it does not.

Agreed, but these are not really about those kind of fora that the decisions are most difficult as they fall within existing patterns. It is just a judgment call as to whether integration in a wider fora will provide more information and traffic than a standalone forum. I am not entirely sure, for instance, that much more information and knowledge has been produced about AZ with the creation of the AZ forum (even though I would not necessarily recommend its closure now).
The more difficult ones are the new SIGs/marginally or not at all related to points and miles fora.

Well said and I would only add why those who say "it's not bandwidth, leave all forums open" why FT would be better off with what could become many forums with very little use? In 5 years will there be 3 dozen virtually unused forums? You could almost bet then the reply will come that few go to those forums because it's too hard to find. I've actually never really understood why FT should be obligated to cater to every demographic, past time or hobby under the sun and wander further away from its core mission.

I appreciate OP's efforts on the topic because IMHO if we're talking about opening forums we should somewhere somehow be talking about forum closures as well.

Good feedback so far and I have a couple of additional thoughts on what has been said in response thus far. (I am clipping the parts of posts that I quote to reference only that part to which I am replying. No disrespect intended)


This I see too as an inherent problem to being human. That said, I know of at least one of you who is in instructor and I suspect several of you have conducted trainings. I think that regardless of how hard it may be, FT as a whole relies on that kind of decision also being able to be handed down when needed. It may never feel right to you as people, but in your roles as TB members it is part of your responsibility and we know that. Fear not our frustration, we are human too. More importantly though with respect the No's and Yes's being handed down, we are FTers.

I do not disagree with this line of thinking at all. What I would suggest however is that somebody will always be fast enough to stir up a campaign against a decision they do not favor. In such a case, in line with what I wrote immediately above and in the original post, it will be your collective task to look at the big picture and make the call. It may raise the ire of some, but it is a communal sandbox and we cannot stay angry forever. A time limit will be a good way to head off some of the "but, but, but" posts though. Either you are there to be relied on or there is no need for TB. I think the latter is nobody's opinion.

I think this is the single best reason against keeping non-performing fora I can think of. Profitability is not derived from a product line so wide it causes shoppers to go elsewhere for lack of ability to find what they want easily.

That said, I see nearly none of the SIT fora as making FT too diverse. It is a hard balance to strike. I have no ready answer for the best mix of fora, but I do see that if the general TB vote at any given time and according to procedure is to eliminate a forum and incorporate its contents into another forum, we have done the best we can as a democratic group of BB subscribers.

I agree TB has a tough job and often gets to play bad cop. I do believe however that this is part of what they take on when signing up for the job. They all have been around long enough to see some ups and some downs. Some arguments and some resolutions. Hopefully they all can see the forest for the trees and we can rely on a positive balance of good decisions. The automatic review I think would cause too many of the types of posts that Spiff refers to earlier in this thread. If a bitter pill is to be taken, best to take it and get on with it instead of letting it become a screaming match between people at the last minute.

I see this process of closure to be key to a lot of progress that has been perhaps restrained a bit lately. I appreciate all the people on and off TB taking time to get something formally organized in this respect. ^

Mike

Mike the TB rules have always been that ANY TB member can make any motion and ANY member can second it.

Whether there is a request from here or not.

The matter MUST then go to a vote. Period.

There was a motion made once when I was on TB, for the TB to NOT do something.

A total waste of time and energy I always thought, to formally vote to agree to NOT do something - but vote away we did. I thought it might have been April 1 - but it was not.

Be like Congress voting to agree to NOT raise taxes. @:-)

As others have pointed out above, politics are the issue here - not any practical need to close anything, or technical limitations on space etc.

The hunting party was dead set keen for the quite new Forum SENIORS to be closed in recent weeks. For pretty obvious reasons to most savvy FT'ers.

When I suggested - knowing it served no-ones political ends to add it to the motion, that the seldom used DISABILTY and DOLLAR RENTAL CAR be added to the motion to also be closed, the wailing began, and as usual nothing happened.

Glen
.

I'm afraid not.

You were politely encouraged to start separate threads to discuss reasons for closing those other forums and you balked.

I think Mike may as well give up.

No amount of logic, is going to change the head butting and politics on TB re this issue. @:-)

You and a few others were hell bent on closing Seniors, and there was no logical reason to do that and not several other forums that were equally as dead.

Sad, but very clearly true. IMHO.

Glen
.

Equally as dead? You cannot prove that quantatively or qualitatively, only arbitrarily. We didn't even get an arbitrary perspective since you are "hell bent" on your agenda of lumping different forums together for closure with no logical explanation given for doing so. Quite sad indeed.

Dollar is as you know full well, dead as a dodo basically. Proof positive, if this is the past 100 days of "action" :

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/forum...&daysprune=100

However no TB member will be annoyed if Dollar or other such Forums gets the can, so I can fully understand why there is no desire for some TB members to hear about it.

And I imagine most other savvy FT'ers will see that too.

THAT'S the "sad" bit if you really want to think on it. Why there is this obvious double standard among some TB members on this issue. @:-)

Glen
.