Too many Subforums?

[ismail]

Hi!

For a long time I´ve been noticing that this board has by far the largest number of forum categories of all the boards I know. Though, it´s not the board with the most users.

I think this makes for less clarity.
For example I would never search for threads I have contributed to via the forum overview - I always do a search for my name, because that´s much faster.

I think that - with the actual number of members and posts - a whole lot of the subforums could be merged together (I don´t wanna go into detail because I think it´s pretty obvious which topics don´t necessarily need an individual forum).
Just one little example:
Is it really necessary and concise to have "General Discussion" AND "General Saxophone Discussion"?
And, even more obvious:
does "General Saxophone Discussion" need EIGHT Sub-Forums from "sopranino" to "contrabass"??

So - blame me fot not knowing exactly how much work would have to be put into this, but:
If I was a forum designer, the first thing I would do here was reducing the number of sub-forums by at least a half.
By the way - that´s the only thing I´m objecting to, so don´t take this as an insult to this wonderful board.

bye!

[hgiles]

I agreed with you for a long while, now I just use the NEW POSTS button everytime I log in and now I couldn't care less what 'FORUM' the topic is in.

If I want to research something very specific then the 'forums' almost double as search criteria. I go to some fourm sites and you can't tell what anyone is talking about from the subject. You see stuff like "Guess what I found out today", or "Oh my God!" and "Could it be true?" Putting stuff like this in a specific forum would at least give you half a chance to figure out what the person is getting at.

I figured out a way to make the current set up work. Pun intended!!

[SAXISMYAXE]

Try managing and sorting them! Believe it or not, we have constant requests that we add MORE sub forums, not eliminate any.

Any constructive suggestions on what to do with the superfluous ones, such as merging some, deleting some etc?

We are certainly open to ideas if they are practicable.

Cheers.

[Dog Pants]

We need a "High Rollers" area. With a well stocked bar, and cigars and all that other sexist male stuff.:D

How's about a forum "Texas Hold 'em" game?

"I'll see your NY Meyer, and raise you a Florida Link!" :D

[Jonathan C.]

I will raise with a Martin Handcraft Troubadour :) Wait that is raising right? ;)

[jazzbluescat]

I agree with Dog Pants, but, I don't know how to play Texas Hold'em. Is that a card game?:twisted:

[saxphil]

Heck there could never be enough sub forums if there is more than enough information.

[nobhead1]

We need a "High Rollers" area. With a well stocked bar, and cigars and all that other sexist male stuff.:D

How's about a forum "Texas Hold 'em" game?

"I'll see your NY Meyer, and raise you a Florida Link!" :D


I think we should call it 'The naughty boys corner'

[hakukani]

I think we should it 'The naughty boys corner'

We don't want to leave out the ladies!

[Ferret]

Here's a link to the best run forum I've ever come across (same forum software too ^^)... I used to play WoW in my younger days. >_> (I actually sold my WoW character and bought a new saxophone... yeah the prices actually matched up rather well, no the sax wasn't terribly cheap.)

http://elitistjerks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

Ironfisted moderation is the philosophy here. :shock:

Few things to note: this forum has 19,000 members... 6,000 more than this forum does. This forum has a total of 3 public forums, and only 2 sub-forums, and yet still has more posts per hour than this forum does. I don't mean to say one template fits all communities, but this forum serves as an example of how fewer forums concentrates traffic for the better. ;)

edit: Oh it's also worth noting that the sub-forums are merely moderation tools, not actually places for members to post.

I don't know saxophone well enough to say how things should be organized, but I've read forums for many years now, so from a forum aficionado's perspective, fewer forums is not always bad. :]

[Ferret]

As a side note:

I bet that if you could do a break down on who voted for what, "Yes" probably has more newer members, "No" and "I don't care" are probably older members, meaning it just takes some getting used to, and isn't bad overall.

[Agent27]

but, I don't know how to play Texas Hold'em. Is that a card game?

It can be. :D

[Hurling Frootmig]

We used to have less sub forums and at one point we didn't have any of them (prior to the move to the new forum software). The forum has grown a lot over the years and along the way we have tried to add sub forums to keep the information organized. As saxismyaxe indicated we are constantly being asked to add sub forums. Once in a while we are able to consolidate some areas and area always open to hearing members ideas.

[brasscane]

This place may not be perfect, and I do think that some get away with stuff others don't, but SOTW is pretty darn good. It is beyond me how the moderators manage this volume of posts and threads, and it is certainly one of the most professionally run web-sites I know of. I am not saying that discussion about the site is out of place but it better have some better merit (duplication intended). 99% of the shortcomings here arise from individual posts and not how the place is organized or managed.

[Ferret]

I don't think anyone thinks this forum is significantly lacking... I think the aim of this thread is to improve upon the already well run website/forum that we all like so much. ^^

Like I said, 1 format isn't good for all communities, and this format seems to be working well for what we need. :]

An alternative to more sub-forums is to enforce stricter thread titling. Better thread titles mean more efficient searches, which leads to less redundancy between topics. If you label a thread "Please help me with this!", the search isn't going to return that topic very often. If you label the thread: "Saxophone Mouthpiece Care: How to get rid of that stanky stank" then people looking for "Stanky Mouthpiece Care" will get that thread. ;p

I think the fact that people use the "New Posts" option to find out what's been recently posted shows that people would rather have 1 forum for all the posts (which is what the New Posts filter is, essentially) than navigate 50+ sub-forums. :]


All in all, it's different people, different preferences. If it isn't broken, don't get out the soldering kit.

[Ruediger Kramer]

i don´t care - everybody can put his things into his own box...


:)

[nobhead1]

We don't want to leave out the ladies!
Hak,

If I find any naughty ladies, I sure would'nt share their details with you. Mine all mine:D

[Jonathan C.]

No I get them ;). And I may share a few.

I use the new search button alot. I usually don't have any questions about stuff. But the new search button allows for post to be made on a topic that is new. If I have a specific question about something. I search for it. And if I don't find it, I post a new Thread. Which usually yields some quick reponses to my questions. How many threads are posted here? Can you imagine all of them on one page? It would probably be a nightmare. I agree with you, on one point. Their need to be better titles to threads, but their is no way to inforce that. If you post a thread wrong. What will happen.
"I'm sorry ___________, you did not post this __________ thread right. Pleae go back and change the title?"

[Dog Pants]

At risk of going straight to hell, I've got to ask: Do we really need a "Sacred Sax" sub forum? Nothing against all the bible bashers, :) but shouldn't the forum be free of such malarkey? I mean "Sacred Sax" as I see it on this site, should more correctly be labelled "American Born Again Christian Sax."

Nothing wrong with Americans, Born Agains, or Christians, but why have a dedicated sub forum for one special interest group? How about a "Church of Scientology Sax," "Darwinian Theory Sax," "Islamic Sax," or even "Hare Krishna Sax"?

To me, the whole "Sacred Sax" thing, smacks of pandering to religious lobby group.


That said......I'm quite happy to let them have their own little sub forum and any other sub forum, for that matter. I don't complain about all the angst in their little sub forum, and they.........constantly pi$$ and moan to the mods about those of us in the forum lounge, (which BTW was, if memory serves, conceived as a sub forum where us heathen types could let our hair down without having to worry so much about offending the net nannies), having a little harmless, albeit tasteless, fun.

[gworthey]

At risk of going straight to hell, I've got to ask: Do we really need a "Sacred Sax" sub forum? Nothing against all the bible bashers, :) but shouldn't the forum be free of such malarkey? I mean "Sacred Sax" as I see it on this site, should more correctly be labelled "American Born Again Christian Sax."

Nothing wrong with Americans, Born Agains, or Christians, but why have a dedicated sub forum for one special interest group? How about a "Church of Scientology Sax," "Darwinian Theory Sax," "Islamic Sax," or even "Hare Krishna Sax"?

To me, the whole "Sacred Sax" thing, smacks of pandering to religious lobby group.

That said......I'm quite happy to let them have their own little sub forum and any other sub forum, for that matter.

Hey Pants,

Let me start off by saying that I am an American and I am a born again Christian and I enjoy having a separate forum to talk with fellow sax players who have specific insight into the world of using their playing for religious worship. While I agree with the beliefs of some of the posters in the "Sacred Sax" forum, there are also many things there I DO NOT agree with. But I have the ability to ignore or "self-edit" the posts that go against my beliefs. I do not feel like anyone has to see religion "through my eyes" and agree with my beliefs, but by posting in the "Sacred Sax" sub-forum, I feel that I am not viewed as trying to impose my beliefs on anyone that doesn't want to hear it.

Having said that, I would like to add that I find MOST of your posts enjoyable to read and your sense of humor very amusing at times. If I see something here that I consider "offensive", I move on to the next topic and forget about it. (I actually missed seeing your posts when you got "Dog Pants'ed"!)

At any rate, I think "pandering to a religious lobby group" is a bit extreme, don't you? For me, it just way of discussing topics with others who share similar interests while not infringing on anyone else's beliefs. Perhaps, renaming it to "Religious Sax" would be less exclusive?

[gworthey]

I don't complain about all the angst in their little sub forum, and they.........constantly pi$$ and moan to the mods about those of us in the forum lounge, (which BTW was, if memory serves, conceived as a sub forum where us heathen types could let our hair down without having to worry so much about offending the net nannies), having a little harmless, albeit tasteless, fun.

WOW! Was that added after I replied? Didn't see these comments the first time!

Who is "they"? Everyone that reads/posts in the "Sacred Sax" sub-forum? Kind of a broad generalization there, don't ya think? How many times have I "pissed and moaned" about anything?

I've got to say, my opinion of you has changed considerably in the last few minutes, DP. Perhaps I should fade quietly away. . . . . . . :cry:

BTW - I agree that the Forum Lounge should be a little less restrictive.

[Dog Pants]

WOW! Was that added after I replied? Didn't see these comments the first time!

Who is "they"? Everyone that reads/posts in the "Sacred Sax" sub-forum? Kind of a broad generalization there, don't ya think? How many times have I "pissed and moaned" about anything?

I've got to say, my opinion of you has changed considerably in the last few minutes, DP. Perhaps I should fade quietly away. . . . . . . :cry:

BTW - I agree that the Forum Lounge should be a little less restrictive.

Nah, I didn't add anything in response to your post gworthey and I agree with your points. "They," is just my lazy generalisation (apologies :D ) for a few of the more "impose my own beliefs on everyone else" types that have, over the years, seen this place become increasingly conservative and restrictive interms of what can and can't be discussed. It's just my personal view (and I accept that I might be alone here :D ), that the mere act of having a religious sub forum, tacitly approves of, condones and encourages, those intolerant, ultra conservative, fundamentalist christians, who wish to impose their ultra conservative beliefs upon the rest of us. I do see your point that having such a forum also allows the more normal and moderate blokes like yourself, to do your thang wiuthout imposing your beliefs upon all and sundry. I'm sorry if you thought I was having a go at you personally. That's not usually my thing.

[jazzbluescat]

Somebody mentioned naughty ladies, where?

[Ferret]

I'm sorry if you thought I was having a go at you personally. That's not usually my thing.

One thing you have to realize: religion is, by nature, personal. It's very difficult to say something about any religion and have that person not take it personally.

I'm sure you didn't think much of what you said, but I can guarantee that Christians can't separate their Christian side from the rest of themselves in order not to be offended, because that's just not possible. ^^

[jazzbluescat]

Everybody feels like if everyone else believed in his (personal) religion the world would be a better place. Well, maybe they do. On the other hand that could just be my religion coming out.:|

Btw, I like naughty Christian ladies too.:)

[coolsax2k7]

i dont really care about having too many subforums. It's having too little, or too many bad or unnecessary subforums that could be a problem. But I don't really see an issue with it, except that some of the lesser travelled sub-forums seem to be a bit useless. But they do not hurt anyone by being there, either.