Merge Forums back together again?

[matthewsaggie]

I find the seperate fourms for general discussion, transit, steam, passenger etc. annoying and have reached the point that I skip some of them on a regular basis.

 Another thread mentioned merging the trains.com forum in, too. 

Am I the only one who feels this way, and how many would like to see them merged back together again?

 

[dknelson]

In spite of Bergie's patient explanation people also have yet to grasp the purpose of the Trains.com forum versus the Trains forum.  In theory more forums and more forum subtopics should make sense but it does not seem to be working out as planned.

Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

In spite of Bergie's patient explanation people also have yet to grasp the purpose of the Trains.com forum versus the Trains forum.  In theory more forums and more forum subtopics should make sense but it does not seem to be working out as planned.

Dave Nelson

In Jim Wrinn's explanation, he said:

"These discussion pages will allow participants a broader opportunity to discuss these specialized topics with more depth than they could in our general discussion pages."

I was not aware of any limitation to depth of discussion on this forum.  I think most people come to this forum just to see what is going on today.  They may find themselves participating in discussions that they would not have dreamed of before they opened the forum.  It is not hard to scan a page or two of diverse topics.  And there is an incentive to do that scanning because you never know what you may find interesting.

If you compartmentalize the forum, then each compartment will be less diverse, thus offering less incentive to go to it and scan its thread subjects if one is not generally interested in that compartment.  So compartmentalization is a double edge sword.  A little bit may offer an advantage in keeping threads up to run their natural course of exposure.  However, too much compartmentalization can limit the thread exposure by reducing the number of passer-bys that would have stumbled across something interesting that they were not anticipating or seeking out.

 

[CNW 6000]

In spite of Bergie's patient explanation people also have yet to grasp the purpose of the Trains.com forum versus the Trains forum.  In theory more forums and more forum subtopics should make sense but it does not seem to be working out as planned.

Dave Nelson

In Jim Wrinn's explanation, he said:

"These discussion pages will allow participants a broader opportunity to discuss these specialized topics with more depth than they could in our general discussion pages."

I was not aware of any limitation to depth of discussion on this forum.  I think most people come to this forum just to see what is going on today.  They may find themselves participating in discussions that they would not have dreamed of before they opened the forum.  It is not hard to scan a page or two of diverse topics.  And there is an incentive to do that scanning because you never know what you may find interesting.

If you compartmentalize the forum, then each compartment will be less diverse, thus offering less incentive to go to it and scan its thread subjects if one is not generally interested in that compartment.  So compartmentalization is a double edge sword.  A little bit may offer an advantage in keeping threads up to run their natural course of exposure.  However, too much compartmentalization can limit the thread exposure by reducing the number of passer-bys that would have stumbled across something interesting that they were not anticipating or seeking out.

 

[nanaimo73]

I'm just disappointed they did not ask us first for our thoughts.

I would be happy if they could fix the forum software, so links would automatically activate, as they did when this was a Snitz forum. Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

[spokyone]

Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

You have a sharp eye.

[nanaimo73]

Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

You have a sharp eye.

And a pointed head.

[Mookie]

Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

You have a sharp eye.

And a pointed head.

but I hear if you comb your hair just right....

[TomDiehl]

I find the seperate fourms for general discussion, transit, steam, passenger etc. annoying and have reached the point that I skip some of them on a regular basis.

 Another thread mentioned merging the trains.com forum in, too. 

Am I the only one who feels this way, and how many would like to see them merged back together again?

 

By your first paragraph, it seems like you are enjoying the benefits of the split. You don't read the topics that don't interest you.

Doing away with the separate section "trains.com" makes sense. I never understood why there was a separate one.

Once people get used to posting under the appropriate heading, it will make it even easier to find only the discussions you're interested in reading and posting.

[samfp1943]

I'm just disappointed they did not ask us first for our thoughts.

I would be happy if they could fix the forum software, so links would automatically activate, as they did when this was a Snitz forum. Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

Thank you, Dale for your unambiguous clarity!

     Suscinct and to the point  as usual...         

[nanaimo73]

Thanks Sam. What is your opinion on the split ?

[chad thomas]

I for one say narrow it down some, at least in the trainsmag section.

[Erie Lackawanna]

I'm just disappointed they did not ask us first for our thoughts.

I would be happy if they could fix the forum software, so links would automatically activate, as they did when this was a Snitz forum. Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

HAH - I LOVE IT...   Great post.

[samfp1943]

Thanks Sam. What is your opinion on the split ?

Quite honestly, Mixed Emotions.. I can appreciate the rationale for the split in the first place, but I enjoy reading the mixture of topics at one location; having to hunt each compartment for a topic of interest gets to be a real drag.

     Especially with a slow dial-up service...

[Andrew Falconer]

The ADMINISTRATOR who has control over the forums has to sort out old posts into the new forum topic categories so they can be discovered again. 

Why have the new categories if all the posts are not sorted into the right heading?

Sort it. Find it. Learn it.

Andrew

[Murphy Siding]

I'm just disappointed they did not ask us first for our thoughts.

I would be happy if they could fix the forum software, so links would automatically activate, as they did when this was a Snitz forum. Perhaps the software could be upgraded so it could remove the c that people like to put in Amtrak.

You gotta a problem with the way I spell Amtrakc?

[samuelpc]

 In my opinion give it time to settle in.  Some people want a one-size-fits-all approach,while others like a more dedicated system.   Me i prefere to look at the different groups of thinking that a specalized forum brings to the table, instead of the everything from soup to nuts that the old system had. (ust one persons opinion)

[CopCarSS]

The large format photography forum that I frequent offers an option to view all the sub-fora in one unified view. I don't know if this is an option here, but it might be a way to offer the best of both worlds.