Hotrodders.com engine forum thread quality
From Crankshaft Coalition Wiki
(→Specific issues with engine forum discussions) |
m (Reverted edits by 122.96.59.102 (talk) to last revision by Cobalt327) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Introduction== |
| − | The quality of discussion in the [http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/engine Engine forum | + | <font size="4"> |
| + | '''The quality of discussion in the [http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/engine Engine forum of the Hotrodders Bulletin Board] has come into question. [[#Specific issues with engine forum discussions|Concerns include]]: '''</font> | ||
| + | <font size="3"> | ||
| + | *Too many [[#Examples of potentially low-quality or too-basic threads|basic, repetitive, or inane questions]]. | ||
| + | *A lack of media savvy and/or industry savvy, and an abundance of self-proclaimed "experts". | ||
| + | *A contentious and aggressive atmosphere. | ||
| + | </font> | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | <font size="4"> | ||
| + | '''[[#Proposed solutions|Ideas for improving]] the Engine forum include:'''</font> | ||
| + | <font size="3"> | ||
| + | *Dividing the Engine forum up into [[#Subforums|various subforums]]. | ||
| + | *[[#Qualifying users|Qualifying users]], or [[#More active moderation|more active moderation]]. | ||
| + | </font> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <font size="4"> | ||
| + | '''However, [[#Argument against change to current policy|the opposing viewpoint]] indicates that:'''</font> | ||
| + | <font size="3"> | ||
| + | *The forum [[#There's nothing wrong with the Engine forum now|isn't really "broken"]], it's just the nature of the net. | ||
| + | *Potential changes [[#This change is an invitation to elitism and snobbery|could invite elitism and snobbery]], rather than [[#Do nothing, just be kind and helpful|cultivate kindness]], and welcome newcomers into the community. | ||
| + | </font> | ||
==Specific issues with engine forum discussions== | ==Specific issues with engine forum discussions== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 106: | ||
====Encourage use of the search function==== | ====Encourage use of the search function==== | ||
Many questions can be solved by simply using the search function. We could more aggressively encourage its use (and the use of the [http://www.hotrodders.com/kb Knowledge Base] and [http://crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki Wiki], especially among newer users. We could use a nag screen for this, and require the user to check a box indicating that he/she has used the available resources prior to posting a question. Alternatively, this could be done with a button that takes the users title text, and searches the forum or Knowledge Base database for matching resources. | Many questions can be solved by simply using the search function. We could more aggressively encourage its use (and the use of the [http://www.hotrodders.com/kb Knowledge Base] and [http://crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki Wiki], especially among newer users. We could use a nag screen for this, and require the user to check a box indicating that he/she has used the available resources prior to posting a question. Alternatively, this could be done with a button that takes the users title text, and searches the forum or Knowledge Base database for matching resources. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *In response to the search function* | ||
| + | Especially in regards to "bigger" forums, there is a tendancy for a thread to move off-track or take on large amounts of only semi-related information by other posters (or somethings completely unreleated information). This comes from alot of people discussing their similiar experiences, or someone who is misunderstanding the issue posting irrelevant info. This results in the search feature becoming tedious to use, even for people who are greatly familiar with the application of Boolean. Some search engines have the ability to seach for exact phrases when put in quotes, however even that trick seems to be widely unknown (for example, google has this feature - I'm amazed at how many people aren't aware of it). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unfortunately, the best way to correct it would be to strip out a great deal of the community bonding that goes on through the threads, by making sure that all initial posters and responses keep the information as specific as possible and limited solely to the scope of the question. Example: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Here is my problem, fact A, B, C, D. Please assist." | ||
| + | "Try this specific steps in this order <steps/order given>. Post results." | ||
| + | "Step 1 yieled x result." | ||
| + | |||
| + | And so on. Obviously this would reduce the humanity of the board, as it were, but it should make the search function more reliable. The other suggestion would be for people to keep one question per thread. I know I have personally made the mistake of asking multiple questions in one thread, and how it would later cause confusion among those kind enough to assist. | ||
====Lock posts that are repetitive==== | ====Lock posts that are repetitive==== | ||
| − | Upon encountering a repetitive post, the mods could post a boilerplate "use the search function, please" response, and then lock the thread | + | Upon encountering a repetitive post, the mods could post a boilerplate "use the search function, please" response, and then lock the thread. |
====Be more aggressive about moving posts into Hotrodding Basics==== | ====Be more aggressive about moving posts into Hotrodding Basics==== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 129: | ||
===This change is an invitation to elitism and snobbery=== | ===This change is an invitation to elitism and snobbery=== | ||
| − | *The newbie | + | *The elite vs. newbie aspect of the Hotrodding Basics forum discourages posting; new users are made to feel like lesser members of the hobby. |
*People come to the forums for human interaction. Otherwise, they would read a book about hotrodding. It's not a big deal to say to a newbie: "do a search". It's part of the learning/teaching process. Don't want to help a newbie? Just don't respond. | *People come to the forums for human interaction. Otherwise, they would read a book about hotrodding. It's not a big deal to say to a newbie: "do a search". It's part of the learning/teaching process. Don't want to help a newbie? Just don't respond. | ||
*Ignore the silly posts, and they essentially go away. | *Ignore the silly posts, and they essentially go away. | ||
| Line 119: | Line 150: | ||
*Rather than framing this as a rule/compliance issue, we can stress how useful the Hotrodding Basics forum can be. We can change the descriptive text, highlight it better, etc. | *Rather than framing this as a rule/compliance issue, we can stress how useful the Hotrodding Basics forum can be. We can change the descriptive text, highlight it better, etc. | ||
*To move or not move into Hotrodding Basics is a judgement call. | *To move or not move into Hotrodding Basics is a judgement call. | ||
| − | *The moderator workload has to be reasonable. | + | *We could make sure that there are plenty of mods who moderate in both the Engine and Basics forums. This is a sound approach, but there are few mods who participate on a daily basis, that leaves a lot to do for a few mods. |
| + | *The moderator workload has to be reasonable- but the work cannot be neglected just because there may be a lot to do. If more mods are needed to get the job done, then assign moderator status to those who can handle the workload and who are on the board daily. | ||
*We should clearly enunciate a list of the types of questions that qualify as "Basic". | *We should clearly enunciate a list of the types of questions that qualify as "Basic". | ||
*Maybe we should try aggressively moving threads into Hotrodding Basics for a month or so, and see how it turns out? | *Maybe we should try aggressively moving threads into Hotrodding Basics for a month or so, and see how it turns out? | ||
| − | + | *Sometimes an initially "Basic" threads turns advanced, and vice versa. | |
| − | *Sometimes an initially "Basic" threads turns advanced. | + | *We need to be mindful of elitism, or, at least, the perception of elitism. One way to address this is if "advanced" users occasionally posted a genuine basic question in the Hotrodding Basics forum. Possibly better, that an "advanced" member take the time to answer a basic question in a way the new member gets a good grasp on the subject. |
| − | *We need to be mindful of elitism, or, at least, the perception of elitism. One way to address this is if "advanced" users occasionally posted a genuine basic question in the Hotrodding Basics forum. | + | |
*Having a Basic forum doesn't mean that we're shunning newbies, it means that we've allocated a special zone just to help them. | *Having a Basic forum doesn't mean that we're shunning newbies, it means that we've allocated a special zone just to help them. | ||
*A humorous and relevant thread posting video is [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting here]. | *A humorous and relevant thread posting video is [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting here]. | ||
| Line 130: | Line 161: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| − | *[http://www.hotrodders.com/help/board/forums.html Hotrodders Guidelines: Placing | + | *[http://www.hotrodders.com/help/board/forums.html Hotrodders Bulletin Board Guidelines: Placing Questions in the Proper Forum] |
| − | *http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/new-rule-engine-forum-please-read-150533.html | + | *[http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/new-rule-engine-forum-please-read-150533.html New rule in the engine forum, PLEASE READ!] |
| − | *http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/you-must-read-before-posting-engine-forum-150530.html | + | *[http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/you-must-read-before-posting-engine-forum-150530.html Improving the Engine forum: wiki proposal] |
| − | *http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/engine-board-getting-out-hand-149172.html | + | *[http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/engine-board-getting-out-hand-149172.html Engine board is getting out of hand] |
| + | *[[Effective thread titling]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Hotrodders.com]] | ||
Your Privacy Choices