Do we really need this many sub-forums?

[damo]

By my count there are 51 sub-forums on this board. I really think this is excessive, and we could make quite a few amalgamations.

Having so many sub-forums mean that interesting threads can get overlooked very easily, particularly in the threads that are seldom used, but are often more relevant for refs than the high profile ones. I really think that we would benefit from a general amalgamation of the threads into something like:

a) Elite rugby (something that happened in a game on TV)
b) Specifics of refereeing laws (ie everything to do with each aspect of each phase)
c) General law discussion (including changes, proposed changes and queries)
d) General help for refs (horror stories, fitness tips, dealing with assessors/how to get promoted etc)
e) 7's/tens/touch League forum


If all the threads were put into a few threads like this, it would be extremely easy to see from a glance at the front page what threads were going, and to find threads you are interested in and want to help out. I know there are means of subscribing to forums and technical ways of finding posts that people have made, but honestly most people don't bother with any of that.

I post on another forum which has absolutely no sub-forums at all, and it seems to work fine. I'm not suggesting we go to that extreme, but a little bit of rationalisation couldn't hurt.

Thoughts anyone?

PS Just by way of illustration, I'll bet hardly anyone even notices that this post has been made, because in order to get to this sub-forum you need to scroll 2-3 pages down before you can see that a post has been made.

 

[ianh5979]

i saw it

 

[crossref]

i agree with damo.

I don't really pay attention to the forums, using the 'New Posts' function which looks across all of them

 

[Guyseep]

Agreed, the "was it right? and, "what's the decision?" Sub forums can be merged.

 

[Dixie]

i agree with damo.

I don't really pay attention to the forums, using the 'New Posts' function which looks across all of them

I suspect most of us do this once we've been around a while - it means we log on to check what's been happening in the last few days. But that's no reason not to have sub-forums - not least because you yourself will enver notice the change. If you are joining and want to find out how to deal with the maul, which is troubling you (a contributor wanted exactly that the other day), isn't it useful for that person to be able to go to a section entitled Maul and look at everything in there?

As Guyseep mentions, a few of the more esoteric ones can be merged - but I'm strongly in favour or retaining the specifics.

 

[damo]

I suspect most of us do this once we've been around a while - it means we log on to check what's been happening in the last few days. But that's no reason not to have sub-forums - not least because you yourself will enver notice the change. If you are joining and want to find out how to deal with the maul, which is troubling you (a contributor wanted exactly that the other day), isn't it useful for that person to be able to go to a section entitled Maul and look at everything in there?

As Guyseep mentions, a few of the more esoteric ones can be merged - but I'm strongly in favour or retaining the specifics.

I guess that is a fair point, and I guess many people would use it as a storage of conceived wisdom, rather than a traditional community that posts on current events. I have to concede that.

Still though 49 sub-forums (I recounted) does seem a touch over the top. Maybe I will try this "new posts" business.

 

[OB..]

I usually use "New Posts", but occasionally I find something has timed out. Then I scroll down the forums to see which ones have recent posts. Much more laborious but the number of them does not bother me unduly.

 

[crossref]

I usually use "New Posts", but occasionally I find something has timed out. Then I scroll down the forums to see which ones have recent posts. Much more laborious but the number of them does not bother me unduly.

the See all threads updated last 24 hours function is very useful, but very hard to get to. It would be good to see that button elevated onto the main menu bar and made more accessible.

 

[Dixie]

the See all threads updated last 24 hours function is very useful, but very hard to get to. It would be good to see that button elevated onto the main menu bar and made more accessible.

Don't bother with that. Click Quick links (other end of the blue bar from New posts), then the first option: posts updated today (which I've found is either the wsame as, or darned close to, "within the last 24 hours").

 

[ddjamo]

robbie has sub forum envy....

 

[crossref]

Don't bother with that. Click Quick links (other end of the blue bar from New posts), then the first option: posts updated today (which I've found is either the wsame as, or darned close to, "within the last 24 hours").

cool! I never knew.

Now if Robbie would only fix the android app that still crashes on particular threads....

 

[Guyseep]

Now if Robbie would only fix the android app that still crashes on particular threads....

I have the same problem :S

 

[crossref]

yes - iknow it's not my phone as my phone and my tablet crash, predictably and repeatably, on the exact same threads.

I just can't work out exactly what it is about certain threads that make them crash-threads... what is it that distingusihes them from the other threads. There must be something.

 

[Robert Burns]

Yeah, probably right that some can be merged, but remember some are in publis areas, and the other is in a private area.

As for the Apps, it's quite frustrating as it was the other way around before (iphone crashed, android ok) I have updated the forum software and now it's Iphone ok, android crash.

I am a few versions behind now, I'll see if a fix has been implemented since.

 

[Dixie]

I just can't work out exactly what it is about certain threads that make them crash-threads... what is it that distingusihes them from the other threads. There must be something.

I suspect Chopper is lurking in them on his iPad, muttering something about recovering the Preciousssss.

 

[dave_clark]

should it be fora, not forums?

;-)

 

[damo]

should it be fora, not forums?

;-)

Obviously, as I'm sure you are aware, that depends on whether we are using the word forum as being derived from the Latin word, or using it in its original Greek sense - before it was appropriated by the Romans as part of their language.

I think a 25 page thread on the appropriate etymological origin for the word "forum" is in order, I'm sure you agree. epper:

 

[dave_clark]

yes, and yes :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

should it be fora, not forums?

;-)

Not when speaking English

 

[didds]

I think we need a sub-forum to discuss this in.

didds