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.
It's kinda looking like the No's still have it on this subject...
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
Personally I think that is right. It doesn't preclude splitting individual topics out in the future, with metrology being a good example.
66 members out of 50,000 voted No?
Meaningless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Voting "Yes" (under two conditions) and "don't care" all told - 85
So no, the majority voting are OK with change.
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 ? ? ? ? ? ?
Perhaps more importantly, it may not be simply a yes/no decision. There have been some interesting alternative solutions mentioned thus far.
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.
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.
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 threadQuoteand were actually actively asking for their own section.
QuoteI 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
QuoteAs 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".
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 threadQuoteand 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.
It would be nice to have tags for threads.
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.
Using real tags would have the additional benefit of being able to classify a thread with more than one.