Forum feels clogged

[DocHolliday]

The issue isn't lack of pixels, it's the shortage of posters who can provide and provoke the sort of content that's now being missed, at least in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the forum has moved in this direction deliberately, traffic remains high and money is being made. People seem to like it, and it won't be long before the average poster knows no other iteration of SF, if that isn't already the case. The "old" SF is gone, and perhaps it's best to let SF be successful on its current terms.

The change in forum direction facilitated the current state, but I'm skeptical that thread resets and the like are going to reverse it. Different people, different times, different format.

 

[Naive Jr.]



The issue isn't lack of pixels, it's the shortage of posters who can provide and provoke the sort of content that's now being missed, at least in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the forum has moved in this direction deliberately, traffic remains high and money is being made. People seem to like it, and it won't be long before the average poster knows no other iteration of SF, if that isn't already the case. The "old" SF is gone, and perhaps it's best to let SF be successful on its current terms.

The change in forum direction facilitated the current state, but I'm skeptical that thread resets and the like are going to reverse it. Different people, different times, different format.

In other words, you mean this website has been taken over by teenagers?

 

[dddrees]

Understood, and I understand why (and philosophically agree). However, at the same time, despite your best efforts, we've ended up in the worst possible scenario. We do have a forum with subforums - there's a Watch subforum called "The Watch Appreciation Thread" and a Tweed subforum called "The Tweed Appreciation Thread" and an Allen Edmonds subforum called "The Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread" etc. etc. etc. But as a result of the approach taken, these subforums masquerading as threads are so big and stream-of-consciousness 'organized' that they are not useful. I'm not advocating for subforums - I'd rather see these threads closed and restarted once they get too big, but by allowing them to get huge, what we have is subforums.
Nobody appreciates the affiliate vendors more than I do (well, maybe LA Guy). But of the Affiliate Threads on the first page, all but one (ehaberdasher) have been bumped to the first page by their owner within the last 24 hours. That's not vendor popularity, per se, it's good marketing. I would do the same if I were one of them. It's a tough balance, because obviously we want the proprietors to be active and participatory, but there is also a limited amount of real estate. I don't know how we solve this one, but there's only room for 50 threads on Page One, and the balance of what appears there seems to be off.

I have to agree with your take. Whether you keep them as threads or place them in subforums people will always gravitate to where they want to go anyway. I'm sure some people may only go to a couple of their favorite threads anyway. However I think that by keeping them as threads all in one subforum it tends to create a lot of the problems your looking solve in regards to generating interest in newer material. It can be rather daunting at times trying to find some information in some of these larger threads at times and because they tend to be at the top most of the time other newer threads tend to get unnoticed.

I wouldn't want to have to navigate millions of subforums, but I think if they are organized in a reasonable manner I would visit a few subforums. I think others would be willing to do so as well. People will always go where they want anyway whether they are threads or subforums, but it would be easier to do so if it where easier to navigate. I don't think having someone trying to decide when to split discussions and threads or resetting them is the answer.

 

[othertravel]

Hey mods,

Can we move back to the old B&S system when there were super threads? I.e cross category threads?

Why can't sellers put suits, ties and shirts in one giant thread? I like the idea of visiting a sellers virtual store. Makes it more of a virtual flea market.

Also, it's annoying when a seller creates multiple threads for the same type of item. I.e. 30 threads for 30 sport coats.

 

[LA Guy]

Hey mods,
Can we move back to the old B&S system when there were super threads? I.e cross category threads?
Why can't sellers put suits, ties and shirts in one giant thread? I like the idea of visiting a sellers virtual store. Makes it more of a virtual flea market.
Also, it's annoying when a seller creates multiple threads for the same type of item. I.e. 30 threads for 30 sport coats.

While we are exploring all sorts of different options for Buying&Selling, we are going to shelve that discussion for now. Because any changes to buying and selling would require significant engineering resources that we cannot commit at this time, I don't feel that that such a discussion would be constructive. Let's keeo the discussion focused on the classic mensewear section only.

 

[Mr. Six]



I was proposing rather that would split up the "Small Questions Threads" into a tractable number of more directed threads,, such as "Post your questions about appropriate clothing for interviews here".  confused (trust me on this one.)

I think that would be helpful in directing people to the right thread and reduce the annoyance of posting in the wrong thread. It would also allow people interested in the topic to focus their contributions there. Wedding attire, funeral attire, first job, black tie, types of parties, does this fit, etc.

I also think that editing titles would be helpful. The Good Taste thread is a wonderful resource but several times people have wandered into it not knowing that it had a specific point, which could be reduced if the title were more generally descriptive.

I apologize if this seems like just another proposal to split forums, but I think it would be useful to create a HOF, FAQ, resource forum that has things like the Coherent Combinations thread, old threads that discuss tailored clothing; the tailors feedback thread; the A&S Expats, NSM, Despos, etc. threads; and the Alden FAQ that gets reposted occasionally. I also think an edited version of the shoe care thread would be great there. (Perhaps the most knowledgable posters would be willing to edit it.) Basically it would be a place that daylights current educational threads that can slip down a couple of pages and some of the "archival" gems that are harder to find.

And regarding a point a few posts up, I think the different shoe sizing threads are really helpful. They're a pain to get through but they are a great resource.

 

[Loathing]



The issue isn't lack of pixels, it's the shortage of posters who can provide and provoke the sort of content that's now being missed, at least in this thread.

As far as I can tell, the forum has moved in this direction deliberately, traffic remains high and money is being made. People seem to like it, and it won't be long before the average poster knows no other iteration of SF, if that isn't already the case. The "old" SF is gone, and perhaps it's best to let SF be successful on its current terms.

The change in forum direction facilitated the current state, but I'm skeptical that thread resets and the like are going to reverse it. Different people, different times, different format.

You're absolutely right, of course.

The sad thing is that there was some really exceptional content, which was both entertaining and extremely informative. It's not just that I'm being nostalgic in a silly sentimental way. There has been a real loss of knowledge, a real brain drain.

And as you say, Doc, the forum's management have seen these changes through wilfully. Even though I must have read hundreds of comments over the last two years begging for something to be done. Fok just ignores it, and he's even taken to deleting all my posts just for complaining.

All I can say now is I'm glad I was lucky enough to learn what I did here from 2005-2012.

 

[Academic2]

[...]

I was proposing rather that would split up the "Small Questions Threads" into a tractable number of more directed threads,, such as "Post your questions about appropriate clothing for interviews here". Of course, someone would have to do the task of actually gleaning what might be good threads.

[///]

I have seen that @Academic2 is in that thread. Would you mid doing the honors? I feel that not more that 3 or 4 threads. Otherwise, people get really confused (trust me on this one.)

I’ve spent some time today browsing through that thread, and most questions fall into one the following categories (of course there are other ways to divide things):

1. Requests for definitions: “What does rise mean with regard to trousers?”
2. Requests for clothing sources: “Where can I buy a …”
3. Questions regarding appropriateness for a particular occasion (job interview, funeral, casual Friday, etc.): “can you wear a dark brown suit to a job interview?”
4. Questions about particular brands and materials: “Does anyone have any experience with … ,” “Any tips for good quality slim-fitting wool trousers?”
5. Questions about fit and tailoring: “Can a peak lapel be turned into a notch lapel??,” “Could someone please tell me what the important measurements are? And also, HOW I would go on to measure them?”
6. Dressing on a budget: “Can anyone recommend … for less than …?,” “Where can I get some good quality cuff links inexpensively?”
7. Questions of ensemble: “what color chinos look good with tan suede desert boots?,” “Can I wear a white dress shirt with pinstripes, with a pinstripe suit?”
8. Questions about using the forum: “How does one insert photos?”


One way of combining these might be this:

I. Questions about buying (2, 4, 6);

II. Aesthetic or technical questions about fit, tailoring, and ensemble (unlike I., above, these often have to do with items the querant already owns) (5, 7);

III. Questions of definition and terminology (1).

This leaves out 3 and 8, but 3 seems to be covered in principle by the link you've now provided at the top of the page to the "Styleforum 101," and questions of type 8 aren't all that frequent, and do seem more FAQ-like to me. If you're amenable to a fourth category, you could always have an "Everything Else" thread.

One last thought. A lot of questions never get answered, as you noted. While this will always be true to some extent, I suspect that splitting the current gargantuan thread into more managable components, either as suggested here or according to some other typology, might encourage more answers in addition to imposing some order on the questions themselves.

Cheers,

Ac

 

[LA Guy]

@Academic2 , those are good categories, but my concern is we name the categories so that the newbies with questions will actually know where to post. A lot of new uesrs/members come in via organic searches, so in order for them to get to these threads, they need terms in them like "wedding suit", "interview suit", etc...in order for them to find them with minimal effort, or, optimally, on their first pass.

So, this is part of what I deal with every day. I look at the entry and exit threads, the search terms,etc..., and you get reasonable sketch of your overall audience. This is broken down into specific constituencies - "superusers", moderates, lurkers, new members, and so on. This particular topic affects a range of constituencies, which actually makes the solution a little more complex. Just to let you know what goes on on behind the curtain.

Cheers,

Fok.

 

[LA Guy]

I think that would be helpful in directing people to the right thread and reduce the annoyance of posting in the wrong thread. It would also allow people interested in the topic to focus their contributions there. Wedding attire, funeral attire, first job, black tie, types of parties, does this fit, etc.

I also think that editing titles would be helpful. The Good Taste thread is a wonderful resource but several times people have wandered into it not knowing that it had a specific point, which could be reduced if the title were more generally descriptive.

As a general policy, we do not change the names of threads from those given them by the OPs. Some people don't mind, but some users have really gotten angry when their thread titles are changed.

 

[Naive Jr.]



As a general policy, we do not change the names of threads from those given them by the OPs.  Some people don't mind, but some users have really gotten angry when their thread titles are changed.  

Your differentiated and knowledgeable replies make me realize you are very intelligent and practical. But what you just wrote surprises me. If you change something someone writes without asking him or explaining to him why the change must be made, are you surprised he or she gets angry? However, I not only have the impression managing this website is a very tough job, I can imagine the conplexity and magnitude of all the problems makes it impossible to spend much time on single problems.

 

[Naive Jr.]

Reading the posts above makes me think of Barry Smith, philosopher specialised in formal ontology who delivered a lecture a couple years ago in which he described his work trying to re-organize a medical information network (biomedical research, SUNY) in the US, when he was faculty member in Buffalo NY. I see in the posts here attempts to organize by means of categories this system. And if it is correct that there has been a loss suffered here, it would be important to prevent more. Fruitful solutions may require sperm from unusual sources.

 

[LA Guy]

Your differentiated and knowledgeable replies make me realize you are very intelligent and practical. But what you just wrote surprises me. If you change something someone writes without asking him or explaining to him why the change must be made, are you surprised he or she gets angry? However, I not only have the impression managing this website is a very tough job, I can imagine the conplexity and magnitude of all the problems makes it impossible to spend much time on single problems.

We have generally not done so, except in cases where profanity was used in the title, which is not allowed on the site. Even in those cases, the posters were often extremely angry. In a few cases, we did so where the poster had been dormant for years. In those cases, there was generally no reaction at all, but a few posters were not at all happy with the changes. The reactions were not particularly predictable given the posting history of the different members.

The issue with changing a large number of titles would be a manpower and manhours problem. While many of the proposed tasks, in isolation, are extremely easy, scaling up on an appreciable level incurs a lot of additional overhead. Instead of 1 PM, it's suddenly 10 PMs a day, numerous different negotiations with a lot of parties, etc... The only feasible way to change titles to "more useful" titles would be to allow administrators and.or moderators to make unilateral decisions. While some communties have had this policy from the beginning, we do not, and I don't feel that there are any benefits that would merit this level of risk to the Styleforum culture.

 

[LA Guy]

Reading the posts above makes me think of Barry Smith, philosopher specialised in formal ontology who delivered a lecture a couple years ago in which he described his work trying to re-organize a medical information network (biomedical research, SUNY) in the US, when he was faculty member in Buffalo NY. I see in the posts here attempts to organize by means of categories this system. And if it is correct that there has been a loss suffered here, it would be important to prevent more. Fruitful solutions may require sperm from unusual sources.

My brother is actually in charge of one of these systems in Canada, and it's a huge PITA.

 

[Naive Jr.]

Then your brother might know Smith. I cannot judge your situation here, if these posters have complaints which are in your situation feasible to solve. The more I hear and read and consider your tremendous amount of data, I want to return to my small world, I feel too stupid. It's not my karma to deal with. You and your brother have the mental presuppositions.