It's been while! Hopefully you all have the patience for another bout of my ramblings about this upcoming forum section, which if you're not already aware, is being developed by Pokemaster.
Over a month ago now, I posted this thread where we collated some ideas for what we want a hypothetical forum section to look like. The post was focused on what content would belong on the forum, and how the forum would operate. The thread was good, and if you have not, I recommend you look through that discussion before you read this one. I think we pretty much exhausted its topics of anything new to discuss, which is good.
However, Pokemaster brought something up in his response that I hadn't yet considered, and that I want to turn our attention to now. It is another factor that is going to be very important to how this forum section is going to play out, and how successful it is in the end. You might have guessed from the title...
Do RMT and Meta remain separate entities, or become part of the new forum?
In writing the original thread, I'd assumed that when this forum section was complete, it would be added as a fourth section to the three we have already. In the thread, I also brought up how it would probably be fitting for two of our existing sections -- Meta and RMT -- to also adapt a forum format. Overall, I'd envisioned four sections for the site: one Q&A in PokeBase, and three forum areas in Meta, RMT and the new discussion area. I won't elaborate on why in this thread, as I think that was covered satisfactorily last month.
However, this came into question at the suggestion of one, singular integrated forum section. It is possible that we could arrange the site so that there are only two sections -- one Q&A though the existing PokeBase, and one multi-purpose forum that covers Meta, RMT and all the topics mentioned in the original thread. What I want to know is which one everyone would prefer: a four-section solution or a two-section solution?
For me, the most important thing to keep in mind here is that the forum feature is being developed as a modification of the Q2A software we already use. So a lot of its features and functionality will be derivative of the features we already have -- just with changes and a different presentation. Pokemaster has mentioned that comments and answers would be merged simply into 'posts', and votes would become like thumb-up buttons. We should make the most of what we've got and use re-purposed Q2A features as much as possible.
So, out of interest, I looked into some of what Q2A could do like a forum if it was presented the right way, without necessarily developing anything new. I came across a feature we don't currently use here called categories, which I think would be massive for the categorisation of any forum/s we implement, and ultimately which solution we go with. For example, the categories of the official Q&A for the software, and how they appear in the navigation.
These categories could be really cool to sort content and allow you to view threads from one particular subject, like you might with a standard 'sub-forum'. You could be browsing the front page of the section -- which might look a bit like the front page in the second link above -- and notice a category you liked, and then access that for similar content. A bit like tags, except more involved and with better admin control.
To illustrate what I mean, it might look like this under the two different systems I've mentioned:
- With four sections, Meta, RMT and the discussion area could all have their own categories, as they'd all be separate 'instances' of the modified software.
- Meta could have categories for suggestions, bugs, articles (like this one), and maybe an 'other' category for content like the post you're reading now.
- RMT could be based on metagame -- in-game, Battle Spot, Smogon rules, VGC, TCG and whatever else.
- The discussion area could be divided by content -- so general (e.g. discussion, debate, news, etc), creative (e.g. artwork, written stuff), trades, games (e.g. this sort of thing; fun stuff) and whatever else. Probably an 'other' category too.
- With two sections, any use of categories would have to be to isolate the sections. So we'd probably have meta, RMT and discussion. We can also set sub-categories using the feature, so we can have the same stuff as above; just with another layer of complexity.
So ultimately, we'd be getting the exact same content, just organised differently. It's matter of how we think it would be most accessible and easiest to navigate. For argument's sake, I'll list some advantages of both systems to contrast the two:
Under a four-section system, we'd get...
- Better-focused content. Segregating each section in the same way they are now helps concentrate them, and probably stimulates traffic flow. It makes them feel individually more important, which is significant given that each has pretty unique content.
- Superior organisation. Even if sub-categories are used in a two-section format, having so many categories for stuff would likely end up a mess and confusing. Having four sections is cleaner. We don't want a problem where we constantly have to fix and re-categorise stuff to keep the feature meaningful.
- The ability to keep all our existing URLs. Merging RMT and Meta means all our current links would break, which doesn't preserve our existing threads very well. Perhaps more importantly, it could ruin our SEO. I really don't like the alternative of archiving the sections and starting new.
- Less preparation to do. Not sure how difficult merging the two databases would be, but we wouldn't have to worry about that if we kept RMT and Meta their own entities. Should be as simple as updating their config and CSS if Pokemaster is doing this the way I think he is.
Under a two-section system, we'd get...
- More concise navigation. You'd have one place to go for Q&A content, and one place to go for forum content. This minimises ambiguity as to where content belongs. It would make for an overall easier experience navigating the site, in theory at least.
- Better activity and user retention. Keeping everything in one place increases the chance someone will come across your thread from a completely different subject. This also delivers the illusion of activity better -- two very active sections looks better than four fairly-active sections.
- Conventionality. Having one forum and one Q&A is probably a more 'normal' approach, and perhaps more accessible to new users if it is well organised. Having a Q&A and three forums in the name of organisation might be confusing at first.
- More universal permissions and metrics. One of the problems of having many sections is that privileges e.g. flagging are not transferable across each. But combining all the forum areas into one completely solves the issue, since the Q&A would be separate anyway.
So, what do you think? Which do you prefer? Do you think there are other alternatives to the systems I've mentioned? Choosing one instead of saying 'whatever is fine' would be more helpful. Any ideas or suggestions for how we could organise this best?
I wouldn't want to sway anyone before we even talk about this, but at the moment, I would personally advocate for a four-section system. This is the solution that I think is the most future-proof, and is the least likely to end up a cluttered mess. Sub-categories as I understand them are pretty invisible in most navigation, which has me pretty convinced four sections are at least a better organisation option.
But this isn't for me to decide! Feel free to speak your mind.
