Time to split up the T&M categories?

[EEVblog]

Look at it as each forum topic has a type, as in datatype. I'm limiting the number of types to some arbitrary and capricious set consisting of "Applications", "Discussion", and "Engineering".

From there, we have the top 4 main categories:

Category	Type
Electronics	Engineering
Products	Applications
General	Discussion
EEVblog	Discussion

So right from the beginning there is a partial type mismatch in the main topics. Now let's look at the Electronics and Products categories in more detail:

Electronics

Forum	Type
Beginners	Discussion
Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff	Engineering
Repair	Discussion
Microcontrollers & FPGAs	Engineering
RF, Microwave, Ham Radio	Discussion
Metrology	Engineering
Renewable Energy	Applications
Open Source Hardware	Applications
Manufacturing & Assembly	Engineering
Crowd Funded Projects	Applications
General PCB/EDA/CAD Discussions	Engineering

Products

Forum	Type
Test Equipment	Engineering
Thermal Imaging	Applications
Other Equipment & Products	Discussion
Vintage Computing	Discussion

With that, would there be a better way to make the various forums and sub-forums the same type, such that categories were more identifiable? Clearly there are topics that can fall equally under Electronics->Repair and Products->Test Equipment.

One of the drivers for splitting a forum is whether there is too much volume in that forum that falls into distinct enough categories. The complement is if there are multiple forum areas that have equal relevance to a topic.

With this as guidance, one way to organize is consider an alternate structure such as:

Engineering

Forum	Type
Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff	Engineering
Test Equipment	Engineering
Microcontrollers & FPGAs	Engineering
Metrology	Engineering
Manufacturing & Assembly	Engineering
General PCB/EDA/CAD Discussions	Engineering

Discussion

Forum	Type
Beginners	Discussion
Repair	Discussion
RF, Microwave, Ham Radio	Discussion
Other Equipment & Products	Discussion
Vintage Computing	Discussion

Applications

Forum	Type
Thermal Imaging	Applications
Renewable Energy	Applications
Open Source Hardware	Applications
Crowd Funded Projects	Applications

Now figure out which sub-forums within each category can be split or combined to be unique enough to be the clear option when the case gets to be ambiguous.

Interesting idea, have not thought about it like that before.

[EEVblog]

It's kinda looking like the No's still have it on this subject...

[tggzzz]

It's kinda looking like the No's still have it on this subject...

Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.

[tv84]

Engineering

Forum	Type
Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff	Engineering
Test Equipment	Engineering
Microcontrollers & FPGAs	Engineering
Metrology	Engineering
Manufacturing & Assembly	Engineering
General PCB/EDA/CAD Discussions	Engineering

Discussion

Forum	Type
Beginners	Discussion
Repair	Discussion
RF, Microwave, Ham Radio	Discussion
Other Equipment & Products	Discussion
Vintage Computing	Discussion

With this in mind where would we discuss Test Equipments ?

[xrunner]

Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.

Can I be allowed to point out something please? I don't think it's "right" based on what you see there at all. 

That poll is almost meaningless because it doesn't reflect the membership as a whole. There are over 50,000 members. How do 66 members voting no against the majority voting yes + "Meh, whatever" + the other category make it "right"? The majority voted to CHANGE or don't care. I'm at a loss as to how you make an important decision like this based on that data.

The amount of people that voted that say Yes or don't care beat the No votes at 75, not counting the votes for category for everything. But even then, what does it mean? Nothing.

That poll in my mind doesn't mean much of anything. The thing to do is what is needed for the future based on an objective look at the situation, like some people have taken the time to point out, like Tomorokoshi, not what a very, very, VERY small amount of people "feel" like you should do. You should know as I do that any change will cause members to complain, even if it's based on an objective analysis of the requirements. As the site owner Dave has to be prepared to push back until they "get over it". This is only responding to the vocal few (the VERY VERY few)  and settling for the status quo.

66 members out of 50,000 voted No?

Meaningless.

Changing the situation based on an objective analysis of what's needed for the future?

Meaninful.

*** sigh *** back to Ebay I guess 

[taydin]

Non-trivial topics usually fit into multiple categories. For example, multimeter repair (T&M, Repair). Or measuring high frequency signals with an oscilloscope (Oscilloscopes, Metrology). The ideal way to deal with this is the use of tags, but of course this requires the cooperation of the OP to provide useful tags. But it is also possible to allow people to add tags to a post (maybe with a criteria of having a certain post count). That way, the topics of lazy members that didn't add tags can be made useful by the community.

[tv84]

66 members out of 50,000 voted No?

Meaningless.

Very good point!

Now, just imagine if this had been sub-categorized and Dave putted the poll in one of those sub-categories.

How much votes there would be? 1, 2... 3 ?   

The voting in the poll is a very good representation of how people deal with the threads/forum. As such, the 66 members are as representative as any other number regarding the people that have opened this thread.

[GregDunn]

 see that most of the tiny percentage of people who voted either want change or don't care.  The rest... don't care at all.   

The voting in the poll is a very good representation of how people deal with the threads/forum. As such, the 66 members are as representative as any other number regarding the people that have opened this thread.

No, they're only the ones who care enough to voice an opinion.  Obviously, the way most people deal with this forum is to use what's there and adjust to changes quietly.

[tggzzz]

Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.

Can I be allowed to point out something please? I don't think it's "right" based on what you see there at all. 

Sigh. I think a "no" decision is the right decision, for the reason I gave.

I have zero interest in the merits or otherwise of various voting mechanisms. Decisions are made by those that turn up.

[xrunner]

Sigh. I think a "no" decision is the right decision, for the reason I gave.

I have zero interest in the merits or otherwise of various voting mechanisms. Decisions are made by those that turn up.

Sigh.  I think a "yes" decision is the right decision, for the reason I gave. Decisions are made by those that use objective reasoning and make the required changes.

No, they're only the ones who care enough to voice an opinion.  Obviously, the way most people deal with this forum is to use what's there and adjust to changes quietly.

Exactly.

The poll is skewed by human nature reactions regarding change, and vocalizing about things that people deem "bad". Have you ever looked at the complaints vs. kudos regarding any product or service (this forum is a service) on various sites on the internet? The complaints always are vastly larger than any kudos for most any products or services. Even products that you have experience with that you know are good designs. The good products that always have problems in a large sample size are the ones you see complaints about. If the service or product is OK - people are mostly quiet. But if it's a bad experience people will complain loudly.

Same for this situation. The people who dislike change will speak up, and the people who don't care won't. I'd bet a DS1054Z that if all that data could have been captured including people that read the poll and decided to go on about their business, you'd see that most people don't really care. What you are seeing is the vocal minority that do not want change. I've run forums and it's always like that. Always. It's just human nature.

These changes should be done after an objective analysis of the situation and careful consideration of the needs of the forum for the future. If, after that analysis, the forum needs a change, then you make the change for the objective reasoning you employed. You tell people the reason, and do it. They suck it up and after the complainers are done (by the vocal minority) we move on.

I just don't get making a decision for 50,000 members on a no vote of 69. It's no 69 and yes 59 out of 50,000 members. That difference is meaningless. That makes no sense at all.

Speaking of moving on ...

[bitseeker]

Ultimately, this is a decision by 1, not 1000 nor even 10. We, the minority of the membership who are participating in this thread, simply provide a variety of perspectives (both for and against) for Dave to potentially consider when coming to a decision.

The majority who don't participate nor provide feedback, well, that's kind of normal. There are a lot of single-digit and zero-posters in the member list, too.

Perhaps more importantly, it may not be simply a yes/no decision. There have been some interesting alternative solutions mentioned thus far.

[tv84]

see that most of the tiny percentage of people who voted either want change or don't care.  The rest... don't care at all.   

The voting in the poll is a very good representation of how people deal with the threads/forum. As such, the 66 members are as representative as any other number regarding the people that have opened this thread.

No, they're only the ones who care enough to voice an opinion.  Obviously, the way most people deal with this forum is to use what's there and adjust to changes quietly.

Greg,

The majority of the people that voted so far, don't want change.  One cannot add the indifferent to the group that we prefer!

IMO the poll result is secondary to the suggestions and arguments that are being written. Those should be the main driver for any final decision.

[xrunner]

Greg,

The majority of the people that voted so far, don't want change.

That's just flat-out wrong.

Voting no - 69

Voting "Yes" (under two conditions) and "don't care" all told - 85

So no, the majority voting are OK with change.

But as I said, It's a meaningless thing because close to 50,000 people didn't vote. It boggles my mind how anyone can use that data to keep from making objective changes for the good of the forum.

But, my mind is easily boggled I suppose. 

[tv84]

Voting "Yes" (under two conditions) and "don't care" all told - 85

So no, the majority voting are OK with change.

 

Why isn't 69 + 21 ? ? ? ? ? ? 

[xrunner]

Voting "Yes" (under two conditions) and "don't care" all told - 85

So no, the majority voting are OK with change.

 

Why isn't 69 + 21 ? ? ? ? ? ?

I give up - Scotty please beam me up now.

[Housedad]

Dave,  this site is your baby.  If you think it would make more sense to change it up, then think it through and just do it.  We who enjoy this forum are not going to run away for some small or even large changes.  The only way for anything to improve is to try it differently and see if it works.  Change it back and try something else later if it doesn't work out.  As for the ones that complain,  too bad.  They will get used to it.

As in everything in life, Go For It.

[EEVblog]

Perhaps more importantly, it may not be simply a yes/no decision. There have been some interesting alternative solutions mentioned thus far.

Correct, it's not a simple yes/no answer. if it was obvious better in respects than I'd just change it, but there are downsides.

[EEVblog]

It's kinda looking like the No's still have it on this subject...

Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.

Yes, Metrology, RF and vintage computers etc were obvious ones to split out as they had essentially formed their own little enthusiast communities and were actually actively asking for their own section.

I don't really see the same with various different types of test gear. i.e. there are very few that just want to talk about scopes and no other test gear.

As I said in my OP, it's not because many people have been asking for it, it's more for outside appearances. e.g people hear about the EEVblog forum being THE place for test gear, and you come in and there is only one area for all test gear.

[tggzzz]

It's kinda looking like the No's still have it on this subject...

Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.

Yes, Metrology, RF and vintage computers etc were obvious ones to split out as they had essentially formed their own little enthusiast communities

The infamous TEA thread is effectively that. Maybe split that out into a new subforum containing only that thread 

and were actually actively asking for their own section.

I don't really see the same with various different types of test gear. i.e. there are very few that just want to talk about scopes and no other test gear.

Yes, that's my view as well.

Key points are

• not to impede browsing, i.e. the Show unread posts since last visit,  Show new replies to your posts)
• not to impede search by on-site and external search engines; while possible, I find it a bit of a pain to do keyword searches for messages I've made)
• not to foul up bookmaks, i.e. to specific posts in threads with >1000 replies

As I said in my OP, it's not because many people have been asking for it, it's more for outside appearances. e.g people hear about the EEVblog forum being THE place for test gear, and you come in and there is only one area for all test gear.

Interesting viewpoint.

Is there some easy way the "landing page" could ease the intro with something like "known not only as the place for test gear, but also much more".

[bitseeker]

Yes, Metrology, RF and vintage computers etc were obvious ones to split out as they had essentially formed their own little enthusiast communities

The infamous TEA thread is effectively that. Maybe split that out into a new subforum containing only that thread 

and were actually actively asking for their own section.

Yes, TEA. Ever since it started making the top-10 lists, I've been contemplating its future and brought it up amongst the members a couple of times within the thread. There are certainly pros and cons to making it a sub-forum of Test Equipment or its own forum. However, the benefit of being able to have threads for different topics would certainly be welcome. It may be better to exist as a sub-forum of TE rather than a separate forum since it's TE-oriented.

Dave, what are your thoughts on how best to house the largest thread in EEVblog forum history?

I don't really see the same with various different types of test gear. i.e. there are very few that just want to talk about scopes and no other test gear.

Yes, that's my view as well.

Key points are

• not to impede browsing, i.e. the Show unread posts since last visit,  Show new replies to your posts)
• not to impede search by on-site and external search engines; while possible, I find it a bit of a pain to do keyword searches for messages I've made)
• not to foul up bookmaks, i.e. to specific posts in threads with >1000 replies

Having 301 redirects in place for that last point is also important for SEO. You don't want Google to get a 404 or end up on the forum home page when it crawls for threads that have moved.

As I said in my OP, it's not because many people have been asking for it, it's more for outside appearances. e.g people hear about the EEVblog forum being THE place for test gear, and you come in and there is only one area for all test gear.

Interesting viewpoint.

Is there some easy way the "landing page" could ease the intro with something like "known not only as the place for test gear, but also much more".

It would be nice to have tags for threads. To minimize chaos, they could be predefined rather than user-generated so thread starters could just pick the appropriate one(s). Then, if the different TE tags could be listed and clickable in the forum description or under it (like child boards are today), that would help with appearance and flexible organization without disturbing any thread URLs or "hiding" the variety of discussions in sub-forums.

A related, but somewhat different, approach can be seen in the VoIP forum on DSLReports. There, all VoIP discussions are in one forum. However, a thread can have a "Group" assigned to it. Doing so doesn't move the thread away from the main forum, however someone can click a group to see only the threads with that "tag" assigned.

Using real tags would have the additional benefit of being able to classify a thread with more than one.

[tggzzz]

Yes, Metrology, RF and vintage computers etc were obvious ones to split out as they had essentially formed their own little enthusiast communities

The infamous TEA thread is effectively that. Maybe split that out into a new subforum containing only that thread 

and were actually actively asking for their own section.

Yes, TEA. Ever since it started making the top-10 lists, I've been contemplating its future and brought it up amongst the members a couple of times within the thread. There are certainly pros and cons to making it a sub-forum of Test Equipment or its own forum. However, the benefit of being able to have threads for different topics would certainly be welcome. It may be better to exist as a sub-forum of TE rather than a separate forum since it's TE-oriented.

I've wondered that (as you can see above), but it is a self-contained ghetto of people chatting amongst themselves on thing that are usually related to electronics.

I haven't seen a decent reason, so I'm skeptical that splitting it out would benefit the wider EEVBlog Forum.

[bitseeker]

Hence the reason I haven't mentioned it beyond the thread before.

[SparkyFX]

It would be nice to have tags for threads.

That is a nice way to qualify content, give it more context and such - other than the subforum/category it is in. Helps with search too and are a good way to prepare or replace forum splits. So you could slowly introduce tags, at some point in time retag old threads and at some point in time move them all at once - or not move them. It has many benefits, as long as the tagging is applied, the amount of work stays the same to move to a different category, but in the case of tags the energy put in is conserved.

A related, but somewhat different, approach can be seen in the VoIP forum on DSLReports. There, all VoIP discussions are in one forum. However, a thread can have a "Group" assigned to it.

I know group tags from a different forum, they even lead to not index them in the search, so their content does not end up in the search results. This might sound harsh, but either content is important enough for a "question -> answer(s)" form and deserves its own thread/blog/faq/wiki article or it is "discuss!" kind of content. Under the assumption that people search for answers, the discussion might not be that valuable - forum internal search that is, google still finds it all, listing posts of users still works.

Another real problem was people answering by referring to use the search function (no results, no links). This means search results contain keywords (in the question) and the only answer is a reference to the search function. This is short of trolling  - on a big scale - it might not be ill intended, but becomes a problem. Next to it not being helpful at all.

Using real tags would have the additional benefit of being able to classify a thread with more than one.

It gives it additional context, allows filtering the view - in case you are a viewer and just want to look which topics there are or are overwhelmed by the variety. The worst thing that can happen is missing tags or wrong tags, but that is the same risk as with topic titles anyway.

I used to spend some time automatically qualifying ten+ years of threads (i think several 10k), meaning to automatically tag and sort them based on some regex-based threshold method (checking the first post only), but still needed to look over and hand sort and then automatically move them. I mean once exported to csv/excel that goes quick and it worked well, but that took a database with qualifiers in them (that in itself was crowd sourced and later curated, spiced up with external data). It was needed because category splits happened after several years of existence, but moving was too much hassle back then (the mod interface was slow and deep - per thread). So having a well fed database of qualifiers (here: test equipment) enables this kind of use.

[beanflying]

There is a simple addon for SMF for TAGS but getting users to add the information is always the issue 

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=579

It would allow permissions to be set to allow others to suggest tags and the OP to edit them along with current or specialist moderators. Personally it goes against the KISS layout of the forum currently and may create an issue when they finally release 2.1.X (not sure if the Vion will be delivered first )

[Specmaster]

The way I view this is, its like an election, those with a view point either way, will if they hold strong views will vote one way or the other and the fact that 66 say no and is the winning vote so far might just reflect the fact that although this thread is very active, it just does not that many of the 50,000 or so members who are that interested in test equipment.

I think it should be treat just the same as any election, give the poll so long to remain open and on the point of closing it down, the option with the most votes wins and it really is my opinion that simple. If people cannot be bothered to vote then they don't have the right to complain either way.