* Proposed Changes to the Forums

[ColeValleyGirl]

I have a bookmark in my browser to the URL for Unread Posts which I use at least once a day. However it brings up all the Sub Forums, some of which I have no interest in reading. The only way I have found to remove these is to open the topic and then refresh the list of unread posts by using the browser bookmark. If there was a way I could "unsubscribe" from a Sub Forum that would be perfect as I could then avoid any of the more technical Sub Forums.

Is there a way that this could be introduced or is it a restriction of phpBB?

Brian

I work from Unread Posts as well, but only open the posts I'm interested in and then use the 'Mark All Read' link to dismiss the rest. As you can see the forum/sub-forum that each post is in, this is one way you can avoid opening them.

[Jean001]

On the whole I agree that the proposed introduction of sub-forums to the General Usage Forum should help those users who experience difficulty with the current arrangement.

I'm not sure that the proposed Plugin Discussions changes ('Using Plugins' and 'Plugin Programming') would work as desired. Others above have discussed the possible options.

I don't think that 'technical content' can be avoided. Adrian covers the point well.

I would not like to see any reduction in 'technical content' in FHUG. I value enormously the knowledge that others share. FHUG provides an education beyond that which I learned from the FH Help and from my using, and experimenting with, the software.

[ColinMc]

I think the reference to "too technical" might be looked at in a different way.

Topics such as Mike referred to

I'm thinking about customisations that require complex use of data references and functions such as in Queries, Text Schemes, Sentence Templates, Source Template Formats, etc.

Often end up as relatively short discussions (or if longer, then at least with a relatively small number of contributors - frequently only Mike, Helen, Mark, Lorna, Nick .... and the OP). These tend to be easier to read and follow and relatively easy for the reader to decide if it is of interest to the reader - even if quite "technical" in its detail.

Recently however a lot of topics have tended to become much longer discussions with a significant number of (often diverse opinions) about the topic, and sometimes straying a bit from that original topic. These can be quite demanding to follow - even if in some cases they might be less "technical" in their actual content as compared to

... data references and functions such as in Queries, Text Schemes, Sentence Templates, Source Template Formats, etc ...

It may be that the interest from a user will be of relevance to the reader, rather than level of technical content. The problem is how to achieve that split without deterring readers, and without discouraging contributors (to either type of discussion).

Could there be a "Discussion" sub-forum for those more esoteric topics to be moved to?

I doubt there is a simple answer, and it seems that Helen's suggestion with any improvements as suggested is a good starting point, and it can be refined with experience. One issue that does concern me is help new or less regular readers to understand where their post is moved to - if moving is to become more frequent?

[ColeValleyGirl]

One issue that does concern me is help new or less regular readers to understand where their post is moved to - if moving is to become more frequent?

When we move a topic we leave a 'shadow topic' behind - essentially the topic shows up for (say) a week in the list of topics in the old forum but if you click on it, it takes you to the same topic in the new forum. We'd supplement that with a brief note in the topic explaining what we'd done and why.

[AdrianBruce]

I'm concerned about how people interact with the forums and the effect of some of the suggested changes.

For instance, moving threads from one forum to a more specialist one. It happens now but only rarely. If some of these ideas are implemented, particularly moving complex threads to a "Techno Speak" forum, then moving will happen more (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it). I presume that this means that the URL would change. So hard luck if someone has already saved that URL. Not good.

Secondly, how do people actually identify the topics that they want to read? Like several others, I simply have the URL of the "Unread topics" link saved. If anyone uses that method, then they'll still see the complex threads, even after they've been moved. I know it's possible to subscribe to certain forums but I've no idea how that sits with "Unread topics".

I need convincing that ordinary users can avoid seeing the "Here be Dragons" forum. Having a forum title of "Here be Dragons" visible on screen is a start but is it just a minor help?

[AdrianBruce]

Helen's explanation of moving threads answers my concern about saved URLs - but only for about a week. If I save a URL, it's with a view to long term usage.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen's explanation of moving threads answers my concern about saved URLs - but only for about a week. If I save a URL, it's with a view to long term usage.

Wouldn't the indicator that it had been moved prompt you to modify your bookmark?

If some of these ideas are implemented, particularly moving complex threads to a "Techno Speak" forum, then moving will happen more (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it).

Moving stuff to a "Techno Speak" forum isn't a goer -- it would depend on subjective decisions and make more work for the mods.

[BillH]

Helen,

If I bookmark a thread and then it is moved to another forum or subform does the bookmatk change to this new location?

This is not a problem, I am just curious.

Thanks,
Bill

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen,

If I bookmark a thread and then it is moved to another forum or subform does the bookmark change to this new location?

This is not a problem, I am just curious.

Thanks,
Bill

I believe the topic retains the same topic number (the p=137090 part of the url for this post) but the forum number will change (the f=48 part). You don't actually need the forum number as I think topic numbers are unique (try it) but a bookmark will usually include it and so stop working when the 'shadow topic' is removed.

[AdrianBruce]

... Wouldn't the indicator that it had been moved prompt you to modify your bookmark? ...

Except that nice Mr Murphy will ensure that I only want to use the bookmark after the "shadow topic" had been removed.

... Moving stuff to a "Techno Speak" forum isn't a goer -- it would depend on subjective decisions and make more work for the mods.

Well, that would be my view as well. Or rather, I agree on the subjective angle and trust the mods on the workload part. Doesn't mean that there can't be a "Techno Speak" forum for people to start their threads in, but that's the OP's decision.

[BillH]

I believe the topic retains the same topic number (the p=137090 part of the url for this post) but the forum number will change (the f=48 part). You don't actually need the forum number as I think topic numbers are unique (try it) but a bookmark will usually include it and so stop working when the 'shadow topic' is removed.

I thought this might be the case.

Thanks,
Bill

[ColeValleyGirl]

Note, the removal of the 'shadow topic' is a manual operation by the mods (we can automate it, but haven't). It's a toss-up between convenience for the people who've bookmarked it, versus clutter in the topics list and/or leading people to believe that topic X is acceptable when it belongs elsewhere.

[ColeValleyGirl]

If I'm reading the room right:

• There is broad support for the objective of helping users who don't want to see so many 'technical'/'specialist' posts (however an individual defines those classes of post).
• There's broad support for the proposed sub-forums within the General Usage forum.
• There's broad support for better 'signposting' to advice for newcomers when entering the forums.
• There's broad support for moving advice on using plugins to the General or Importing forums/sub-forums).
• However, Plugin support and development needs a little more discussion (I'll be coming back to this later in this post).

It's worth reiterating that we cannot prevent anybody from seeing something they're not interested in, or that they don't understand; we can only reduce the likelihood (while keeping the balance between being 'approachable' and being informative).

==========================================================

Unless anyone screams in horror, I intend to:

• Implement the new General sub-forums and Importing forum.
• Look at options for better signposting for new users [advance warning: I will be looking for help!]

As we gain experience with the new structure, we may find we need to refine it further, but we do need to make a start.

==========================================================

And so to plugins...

‘Plugin Programming’ as a forum title clearly doesn’t hit the right spot. What about ‘Plugin Technical Support and Development’ with scope as previously proposed:

• Bug reporting and enhancement requests.
• Beta testing of enhancements, bug fixes and new plugins.
• A sub-forum 'Programming Technicalities' for discussions of Lua programming and the development of new plugins.

I think it’s important that all beta-testing takes place here rather than in the General or Importing forums, as:

• it helps to make clear that any plugins downloaded from this forum should be used with caution on test data, and that they will be deleted once testing is complete.
• it handles all bugs/requests/testing consistently, whether the need arises from a discussion in another forum, on the Mailing List, the Facebook Page, the Plugin Store, a user reporting a bug or making an enhancement request directly in the Plugins forum, or an author carrying out enhancements on their own initiative. (Of course, an author may choose to handle reports from the Mailing List etc. elsewhere if they prefer)
• it removes topics from the other forums which by any measure are only of interest to a very small number of people (typically, only the plugin author and the person who reported the bug/requested the enhancement).

If a bug is encountered in a published plugin during discussions in the General etc. forums, others have already said that it's not that hard for the plugin author to create a new topic in a Plugin Support forum (with links back and forth). It would make sense to post a workaround, if one is identified, in the original topic.

Should the plugin author want to move/merge some of the original context into the new topic, they can use the ! mark icon to report the post to the moderators, explaining what they need to happen (if they're a moderator they can skip this step ). Alternatively, they can cut and paste/write a brief summary of the context for their own benefit.

==========================================================

Again, we can refine the structure of the Plugins TS&D forum with experience, once people are in agreement with a starting point.

[Jean001]

The latest proposals seem fine to me.

[sleepingwolf]

I agree. These proposals seem to strike the right balance.

[fhtess65]

All looks good to me

[jelv]

Helen,

If I bookmark a thread and then it is moved to another forum or subform does the bookmark change to this new location?

This is not a problem, I am just curious.

Thanks,
Bill

I believe the topic retains the same topic number (the p=137090 part of the url for this post) but the forum number will change (the f=48 part). You don't actually need the forum number as I think topic numbers are unique (try it) but a bookmark will usually include it and so stop working when the 'shadow topic' is removed.

I don't think that is correct. The URL for the first post in this topic is:

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=21858

Replacing the f=48 by a totally stupid number the link still works e.g.:

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=987654&t=21858

Likewise replacing with a valid number of a different forum still works. E.g.:

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21858

So, providing the topic number is the same, I can't see any reason why a bookmark to a URL with a wrong forum number wouldn't work.

Makes you wonder what the point is of having the forum number in the URL!

[AdrianBruce]

I'll buy your proposals, Helen.

[Little.auk]

The proposals all look pretty sensible to me. Anything that streamlines the forum and makes things easier to find would be good. So with that in mind can I make an observation which generates two further suggestions.

Looking at the forum today there are several very long threads - some having been allowed to grow to 50 plus posts long. In my experience most questions are answered satisfactorily in the first two or three responses - subsequent posts adding little to the discussion. These responses get very quickly "off topic" arguing semantics rather than answering the question, and the "real value" responses are swamped in the "noise".

So, a couple of observations ---

1 - I find that moderators on other forums are much less tolerant, few threads being allowed to reach double figures before intervention.

2 - Like some other forums I subscribe to, those who post a question should be encouraged to post again when the question has been answered to their satisfaction. The moderator then closes the thread.

It should make moderators jobs easier if threads are kept short - it should also help users to find relevant answers to their questions already in the forum rather than raising duplicate queries.

[AdrianBruce]

...
2 - Like some other forums I subscribe to, those who post a question should be encouraged to post again when the question has been answered to their satisfaction. The moderator then closes the thread. ...

I was once part of a (Facebook) forum for a well-known commercial FH website. But not for long. Someone had asked a question "The parish registers for XYZ didn't appear to be available on the site? Why not?" (Exact wording not guaranteed).

The mods said "Ask the site's support team" and the thread was closed. Because I hadn't come across thread-closing before, I wrote a response saying that there could be several reasons why stuff wasn't available, starting with the possibility that the registers no longer existed. I explained how to look in the Record Office's catalogue to see if the PRs were there, and suggested that if the RO didn't have them, but had later ones, then the balance of probabilities was that they didn't exist any more. In my head, this was useful supplementary information that could be used not just for parish XYZ but for everyone.

Then I found that thread-closing meant that I couldn't add this information. This said to me that the mods and that forum were not interested in collecting and teaching knowledge, but simply in getting as many questions "answered" as possible in the fastest possible time. No doubt the mods glowed with satisfaction at their speed. I don't know - I came out of that forum straight away.

[Ron Melby]

late to the party, but:

General Usage Sub-Forums

Diagrams and Charts
Exporting
Installing, Migrating (to another PC) and Upgrading
Managing Media
Place, Addresses, Maps and Geocoding
Research Planning
Sharing Your Research: Reports, Books and Websites
Sources and Citations

Exporting, wouldn't Importing/Exporting be the functional area?
I know that certain topics are ubiquitous, and subsets of everything would appear everywhere: data references; is there a plugin?; and I suppose most of the issues are 'techie', but its sort of necessary, and Query 'programming' should stand on its own as well. I dont know if its possible to sub-sub-sub... forum and Query could be paired with programming plugins or something akin to that, and there almost needs to be something like GUI or settings, for the "I want to put Social Security Number on the...." (customize data entry) or (preferences). All in all, the forums consist of explanations; how tos; where is?; of each of the items on the fh ribbon.

[LornaCraig]

Exporting, wouldn't Importing/Exporting be the functional area?

The existing 'Importing and Exporting' forum will be just for Importing. This is because most of the issues encountered by migrants from other software are not relevant to ‘General Usage’ of FH. Exporting is likely to be of wider interest so will become one of the sub-forums of General usage.

The other issues you have raised have been considered, but Helen explained:

I am not proposing sub-forums for 'Searching and Querying', or 'Functions and Data References', or 'Facts and Fact Sets' because those topics will inevitably crop up all over the place, as they're fundamental to the way things work in FH.

[NickWalker]

I think there needs to be a decision as to whether this forum is just for asking questions and getting responses or whether people are allowed to have discussions about things which are perhaps more technical in nature and perhaps do ramble on and will only be of interest to a minority of the users. I've always seen this as a 'User Group' catering for all levels and I've often found some of the more philosophical discussions quite interesting, even though I'm sure lots of people won't. If those kinds of discussions are allowed then please can people not jump in and say that it is too technical, too pedantic, off-putting to new users, etc. Perhaps there does need to be a sub-forum for this, e.g. 'Family Historian Discussions'.

[Jean001]

I think there needs to be a decision as to whether this forum is just for asking questions and getting responses or whether people are allowed to have discussions about things which are perhaps more technical in nature and perhaps do ramble on and will only be of interest to a minority of the users. I've always seen this as a 'User Group' catering for all levels and I've often found some of the more philosophical discussions quite interesting, even though I'm sure lots of people won't. If those kinds of discussions are allowed then please can people not jump in and say that it is too technical, too pedantic, off-putting to new users, etc. Perhaps there does need to be a sub-forum for this, e.g. 'Family Historian Discussions'.

I agree.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I think there needs to be a decision as to whether this forum is just for asking questions and getting responses or whether people are allowed to have discussions about things which are perhaps more technical in nature and perhaps do ramble on and will only be of interest to a minority of the users. I've always seen this as a 'User Group' catering for all levels and I've often found some of the more philosophical discussions quite interesting, even though I'm sure lots of people won't. If those kinds of discussions are allowed then please can people not jump in and say that it is too technical, too pedantic, off-putting to new users, etc. Perhaps there does need to be a sub-forum for this, e.g. 'Family Historian Discussions'.

This place would be fundamentally different if it was only Q&A -- discussions are part of our 'DNA.' There will be occasions on which discussions that arise in the course of answering a question are best moved to their own separate topic, but I'd keep them in the same forum/sub-forum (because the proposed forums etc. are topic-based, not based on experience levels of interest levels).