Should we have a board for every term/article or should we rely on a few catchall boards?The idea behind a board per term was so we easily allow editors to discuss the various points about each term in a very organized way and so we could pull in the most recent posts via RSS.Do you think this is valuable in the long or short term?
Or would it be better to have an uber term discussion board? Another possibility is making term discussion boards on an as requested basis.
You guys already know this but I like one board per article. It's about having a consistent, dependable, dedicated resource for any term whose page you're on. Anything else just fuzzies things up. If people are looking for more general discussions, those can already be found all up and down the Fool discussion boards. So to me the ultimate aim here is not to drive volume so much as to provide people a "home board" for discussion on the specific term they're looking up. Some will be volume and some will have no posts, but build it and they will come (same reason we're glad on CAPS we built it all out ticker by ticker, rather than lumping lower-volume tickers into baskets or by jumbles of tags). --DG
As this builds out your going to have multiple terms that are closely related which could cause a different type of confusion if you have a board for each. Consider "daybagger" and "spiffy-pop" for example; do you really want two separate discussion boards? I lean towards a board per term/article but there will be some jumble that can occur. Can it be a default for one board per article but allow for a manual override to join certain terms into one board? (Probably not practical but thought it was worth asking.)Perhaps daybagger and spiffy-pop should link to a single article/page and thus have a single discussion board?Karl ~ strolling through
I wonder if instead of having a board for every term there is a board for every category. That might be simpler and more efficient.
Perhaps daybagger and spiffy-pop should link to a single article/page and thus have a single discussion board?I think you're probably correct in this example since they are so related and have little chance of being expanded into much more than they currently are. The decision in cases like this will be made on the wiki and not in the board creation process.In the short term, I will create boards on a weekly basis for every well-developed article, since they have a greater chance of having a conversation about them. I'll start at the top of the list here:http://wiki.fool.com/index.php?title=Special:LongpagesAnd I'll start with this page:http://wiki.fool.com/wiki/DividendFool on TMFGebnir and TMFJazzysav!It might make sense in the long-term to go with boards per category but we'll see how it goes this way for now.If anyone wants a board created about an article just email firstname.lastname@example.org and I'll create it that day.Jeremy
You guys already know this but I like one board per article. It's about having a consistent, dependable, dedicated resource for any term whose page you're on. Anything else just fuzzies things up.David,At first blush, a board for every term is an organized and simple way to do it, but I have concerns I shared with Jeremy privately earlier.1. Only admins can currently open boards. We would need a tech process to allow editors to create a board and link to it. That opens other security concerns.2. Redundancy: Are editors going to search for an appropriate board before creating new ones? If every permutation of a term has its own board, it creates the fuzziness you want to avoid.3. If the intention is to link from the article page to specific conversation about the term, why not link to a thread in a category board? Anyone can start a new thread in an existing board without needing permissions or tech processes, and all of the conversation would be in that thread instead of scattered in multiple threads on a discrete board.My 2 centavos :)Richard
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |