it's a bug, not a feature - Edit 1
Before modification by Ava at 11/05/2011 06:46:31 PM
There actually haven't been a whole lot of benefits mentioned so far; just three really. The biggest reason seems to be, "Because we're used to it!" Fair enough, but that's not exactly describing a benefit of the software, just an unwillingness to change. The other 2 points listed so far have been, "It's easier to avoid tangents", and "It's different from most other forums." The "We're used it to it!" crowd seems by far the biggest. Now, I understand not wanting to change, as it can be a hassle to learn a new system and if the current works fine for you, why bother? However, just because it does ok for you doesn't mean that it's doing so well for everybody else, and I wish the more conservative elements of the board would at least be open-minded enough to listen and consider some of the less positive aspects of the current forum style.
I know you're probably not going to agree with any of this, but I feel a masochistic need to get it off my chest anyway. So here it is, the drawbacks and deficiencies in the current forum style, which could be alleviated by upgrading to a more updated forum style. In my humble opinion, of course. Here we go!
The biggest drawback to this style is that it's a big deterrent to new members, for a myriad of reasons. Maybe I'm the only one who's seen it this way, but it seems evident to me like this site has been on a long, steady decline for quite a few years now. Using the waybackmachine (<3), going back in time to 2006 it looks like wotmania averaged around 600 members (give or take) logged in on the site at any given time. That number seems to decrease to ~500 in 2007. I couldn't pull up the links to 2008 because my connection was being hinky, and wotmania closed in 2009 whereupon RAFO took up its mantle. RAFO isn't archived on the waybackmachine (the waybackmachine bases the sites it archives on how often the site is cross-linked on other sites, and whether it's listed in major directories. The absence of RAFO there tells a story of decline in itself), but to use anecdotal evidence, on an average day when I log in there are usually between 50 and 100 members active, depending on time of day; split the difference and call it an average of about 75 members logged into RAFO at any given time. This means that we've gone from an average of 600 members active at a given time in 2006, to 500 in 2007, to 75 in 2011. That's a pretty precipitous decline. I interpret this data to mean that after wotmania died, most wotmaniacs dispersed hither and yon across the internet (most likely to other wot sites such as dragonmount and theoryland; our tree-style forum setup apparently wasn't enough to keep them here); a minority stayed with RAFO; and that minority has been dwindling ever since. To take a broader view, and to keep the website nuts-and-bolts such as forum software in perspective, the only way to stop the steady slide into obsolescence is to focus on attracting new members. If we don't want to attract new members, and some may not, then we need to be open and honest about that.
In response to the argument that the "unique" forum style is an enticement to join, and that it's the only thing that differentiates this site from other WoT sites, I'd say that that's only half correct. The forum style is indeed the only big difference between our site and other WoT sites. The site content largely duplicates the content of other WoT sites (eg Dragonmount, theoryland, etc); the only big difference is indeed our forum style. Given the long, steady decline in membership of our site, compared to the steady growth of other sites, and the fact that the only difference is forum style, the inescapable conclusion seems to me to be that our forum style is the cause of the difference. If someone has some other explanation for our decline compared to other near-identical sites' growth, I'd be interested to hear it. Contrary to what others have said, our "uniqueness" is not a plus that can attract new people. It's quite the opposite, and based on the numbers, it actually appears to be driving new people away. It's a bug, not a feature. Now, I understand that some might prefer to have a familiar forum style (well, familiar to them, anyway) at the cost of giving up new members. But if that's what we really want to do, then let's at least be honest and up front about it.
Next, the click-on-every-thread thing means that most of us only read threads by people we already know. That makes it difficult for a new person to build a good reputation, since one is largely ignored until you already /have/ a reputation. It's a catch-22 for anyone trying to join; people won't read their posts until they become known, and they can't become known until people read their posts. If you don't care about growth or the long-term viability of the site, then it's not a big deal. But if you want to avoid having the site go defunct in a matter of a few years, then membership growth should be a focus for us. And things that discourage new members from joining or participating should be looked at closely, even if it makes the rest of us uncomfortable.
As far as the ability to ignore tangents, they're equally easy to ignore them in both systems; it's actually easier in bb, I think. I don't how much time the naysayers have spent on bb forums (just enough time to say "ew" and turn around, it looks like), but it's actually not terribly different from the current style. Just picture the person's entire post showing, instead of only the title of the post. Posts go down the line in order just like they are now, and that's pretty much it. It's not very drastic at all! Showing only the post title and nothing else isn't even that useful relevancy-filtering-wise, since unless the poster makes it abundantly obvious in the title that it IS a tangent, one still has to click on it and read it to discover that it's irrelevant. There's no time saved there at all. Many posters don't put descriptive titles on their posts, instead often opting for RE: OP and such, which tells the potential reader absolutely nothing. (Or you get folks like me, who write ridiculously long posts and then can't think of a short, punchy title that encapsulates all the plethora of points, so they choose something lame for a title because there's no real way to sum everything up.) The subtrees also get cumbersome, like the one on this thread where they bunch up all the way at the right of the page. A few more twigs on the tree, and it'll be a squashed mess at the edge of the screen.
It's a failing of mine that I don't really understand why folks think that bb would be such a hassle. To me the current layout is much more arduous. A person is willing to click on 140 individual links (the number of replies so far) to read this thread, but that same person won't be willing to click 6 times go through the same amount of material? (The average number of posts per page is around 25, so a thread this length would be six pages). It's generally obvious from context who the poster is responding to, and if there are posters who consistently post asinine nonsense that you don't want to read you can perma-ignore them without having to buy a premium account. Think of it as basically horizontal navigation across pages, instead of vertical navigation scrolling through trees. The reason 95% of forums use it is not because of groupthink or whatever explanation someone gave a while back; it's because the software is simply more flexible and more usable. Despite some members' semi-irrational fears, it's a lot easier to use than what we currently have, and would not be much of a hassle, either to install or to learn to use.
I'm actually still a little bemused by the edge of antagonism in the reaction against changing. I once got a similar emotional reaction when I was younger, and naively tried to convert a relative from one side of the political spectrum to the other; I'm a little amused that something as minor as changing forum layouts has engendered the same strength of reaction. Just for the record, I'm not suggesting changing because I dislike RAFO for any reason; on the contrary, I really enjoy RAFO and the suggestions given are attempts to help improve it.
Anyway, I'm sure I've probably wasted my breath here, and that you'll disagree with most everything that I've said. (Assuming you've read this far through my essay of a post, in which case I thank you for your attention.) I understand that the boards are conservative (or at least, the the most vocal and influential members of the boards are conservative; only a dozen or so people have responded to the tree-vs-bb portion of this thread, which on a board with hundreds of members (~75 at any given time, see above) seems like strangely few. If the topic is truly that controversial, I'm surprised a larger portion of the community hasn't commented on it....) Anyway, I understand that the changes I've suggested will most likely never be implemented, and that's ok. It's a wishlist, not a plan of action.
(Edit for spelling)
I know you're probably not going to agree with any of this, but I feel a masochistic need to get it off my chest anyway. So here it is, the drawbacks and deficiencies in the current forum style, which could be alleviated by upgrading to a more updated forum style. In my humble opinion, of course. Here we go!
The biggest drawback to this style is that it's a big deterrent to new members, for a myriad of reasons. Maybe I'm the only one who's seen it this way, but it seems evident to me like this site has been on a long, steady decline for quite a few years now. Using the waybackmachine (<3), going back in time to 2006 it looks like wotmania averaged around 600 members (give or take) logged in on the site at any given time. That number seems to decrease to ~500 in 2007. I couldn't pull up the links to 2008 because my connection was being hinky, and wotmania closed in 2009 whereupon RAFO took up its mantle. RAFO isn't archived on the waybackmachine (the waybackmachine bases the sites it archives on how often the site is cross-linked on other sites, and whether it's listed in major directories. The absence of RAFO there tells a story of decline in itself), but to use anecdotal evidence, on an average day when I log in there are usually between 50 and 100 members active, depending on time of day; split the difference and call it an average of about 75 members logged into RAFO at any given time. This means that we've gone from an average of 600 members active at a given time in 2006, to 500 in 2007, to 75 in 2011. That's a pretty precipitous decline. I interpret this data to mean that after wotmania died, most wotmaniacs dispersed hither and yon across the internet (most likely to other wot sites such as dragonmount and theoryland; our tree-style forum setup apparently wasn't enough to keep them here); a minority stayed with RAFO; and that minority has been dwindling ever since. To take a broader view, and to keep the website nuts-and-bolts such as forum software in perspective, the only way to stop the steady slide into obsolescence is to focus on attracting new members. If we don't want to attract new members, and some may not, then we need to be open and honest about that.
In response to the argument that the "unique" forum style is an enticement to join, and that it's the only thing that differentiates this site from other WoT sites, I'd say that that's only half correct. The forum style is indeed the only big difference between our site and other WoT sites. The site content largely duplicates the content of other WoT sites (eg Dragonmount, theoryland, etc); the only big difference is indeed our forum style. Given the long, steady decline in membership of our site, compared to the steady growth of other sites, and the fact that the only difference is forum style, the inescapable conclusion seems to me to be that our forum style is the cause of the difference. If someone has some other explanation for our decline compared to other near-identical sites' growth, I'd be interested to hear it. Contrary to what others have said, our "uniqueness" is not a plus that can attract new people. It's quite the opposite, and based on the numbers, it actually appears to be driving new people away. It's a bug, not a feature. Now, I understand that some might prefer to have a familiar forum style (well, familiar to them, anyway) at the cost of giving up new members. But if that's what we really want to do, then let's at least be honest and up front about it.
Next, the click-on-every-thread thing means that most of us only read threads by people we already know. That makes it difficult for a new person to build a good reputation, since one is largely ignored until you already /have/ a reputation. It's a catch-22 for anyone trying to join; people won't read their posts until they become known, and they can't become known until people read their posts. If you don't care about growth or the long-term viability of the site, then it's not a big deal. But if you want to avoid having the site go defunct in a matter of a few years, then membership growth should be a focus for us. And things that discourage new members from joining or participating should be looked at closely, even if it makes the rest of us uncomfortable.
As far as the ability to ignore tangents, they're equally easy to ignore them in both systems; it's actually easier in bb, I think. I don't how much time the naysayers have spent on bb forums (just enough time to say "ew" and turn around, it looks like), but it's actually not terribly different from the current style. Just picture the person's entire post showing, instead of only the title of the post. Posts go down the line in order just like they are now, and that's pretty much it. It's not very drastic at all! Showing only the post title and nothing else isn't even that useful relevancy-filtering-wise, since unless the poster makes it abundantly obvious in the title that it IS a tangent, one still has to click on it and read it to discover that it's irrelevant. There's no time saved there at all. Many posters don't put descriptive titles on their posts, instead often opting for RE: OP and such, which tells the potential reader absolutely nothing. (Or you get folks like me, who write ridiculously long posts and then can't think of a short, punchy title that encapsulates all the plethora of points, so they choose something lame for a title because there's no real way to sum everything up.) The subtrees also get cumbersome, like the one on this thread where they bunch up all the way at the right of the page. A few more twigs on the tree, and it'll be a squashed mess at the edge of the screen.
It's a failing of mine that I don't really understand why folks think that bb would be such a hassle. To me the current layout is much more arduous. A person is willing to click on 140 individual links (the number of replies so far) to read this thread, but that same person won't be willing to click 6 times go through the same amount of material? (The average number of posts per page is around 25, so a thread this length would be six pages). It's generally obvious from context who the poster is responding to, and if there are posters who consistently post asinine nonsense that you don't want to read you can perma-ignore them without having to buy a premium account. Think of it as basically horizontal navigation across pages, instead of vertical navigation scrolling through trees. The reason 95% of forums use it is not because of groupthink or whatever explanation someone gave a while back; it's because the software is simply more flexible and more usable. Despite some members' semi-irrational fears, it's a lot easier to use than what we currently have, and would not be much of a hassle, either to install or to learn to use.
I'm actually still a little bemused by the edge of antagonism in the reaction against changing. I once got a similar emotional reaction when I was younger, and naively tried to convert a relative from one side of the political spectrum to the other; I'm a little amused that something as minor as changing forum layouts has engendered the same strength of reaction. Just for the record, I'm not suggesting changing because I dislike RAFO for any reason; on the contrary, I really enjoy RAFO and the suggestions given are attempts to help improve it.
Anyway, I'm sure I've probably wasted my breath here, and that you'll disagree with most everything that I've said. (Assuming you've read this far through my essay of a post, in which case I thank you for your attention.) I understand that the boards are conservative (or at least, the the most vocal and influential members of the boards are conservative; only a dozen or so people have responded to the tree-vs-bb portion of this thread, which on a board with hundreds of members (~75 at any given time, see above) seems like strangely few. If the topic is truly that controversial, I'm surprised a larger portion of the community hasn't commented on it....) Anyway, I understand that the changes I've suggested will most likely never be implemented, and that's ok. It's a wishlist, not a plan of action.
(Edit for spelling)