Marketing of The Forum

[Grains]

I have been on this forum for a little of 3 weeks and although I may or may not be the one for suggestions I think that feedback from anybody could be positive.

 

Have you ever done a study on this forum to see which new users have never been to a forum before or been a member of? And, compared that to the discussions threads they were posting and who the interacted with. Have you considered when a new member shows up for the website to point them to kind of a mission statement of the site and the general consensus/rules within it.

 

Have you ever taken a census of the members who reached lets say a post count of less than 100 and not returned and seen what interaction they had with other members/moderators/administrators? (The reason I ask is so many post have been started by members who have not logged on since forever and have less than 100 post and seemingly disappeared. )

 

One forum I have been in, I never joined but I have perused, has moderators who cannot conduct in the actual threads. They simply moderate. After all that is what a moderator is.

 

Hypography is a great site. The one thing I do see is the fact that for the past 3 years some of the main contributors are still the main contributors. This may be fine. But I was just curious if any studies have been done to examine these different factors and the growth of hypography overall.

 

I was just curious because I am in business and naturally I examine the business aspects of things. I was just curious to what your site is doing to attract new members, more importantly: retain new members, and offer new exciting things to hypography.

 

I think member retention would be one of the things I focused on most. As acquiring new members is the most costly part (advertising, word of mouth, etc) and retaining members is the easier part if done correctly.

[Buffy]

We've done some informal studies, however there's always more to be done!

 

I'm a marketing maven myself, so I'm quite familiar with what you're talking about here and agree with your conclusions about retention of members.

 

On your comment about moderators, I'm not sure that you'd find that even a large minority of discussion forums have moderators who "only moderate": that would be the most boring job in the world. We're all here because we enjoy each other's company, and enjoy discussing all of these topics ourselves.

 

Its a club: some people find they enjoy it here and others do not, but almost without exception, the reason people stay is that they like the "atmosphere" and the people.

 

Content is King of course, and one of our distinguishing charactersitics as a Science Forum is our willingness to discuss all sorts of theories beyond the "conventional wisdom" and that has brought in an interesting cast of characters who make this place even more interesting.

 

No, we're not Slashdot or Facebook, but we're not trying to be. Some people don't like the reception they get here, but often its because they *don't* bother to read the rules that are easily located at the top of every page of the site, or try to look around and get a feel for what this place is like but rather barge in and start making demands about acceptance, and to those folks this place can sometimes look like a biker bar at 2am on Saturday night.

 

Its unfortunately those folks who make this place sometimes seem unfriendly to what I call the "women and children" and so if anything we can be quite harsh with folks who are antisocial.

 

If you've done marketing, you'll know that its expensive. I've had multi-million dollar budgets to play with at work, but there's no money here at all. Word of mouth along with a very high Google Rank (which unfortunately the Spammers just love to try to take advantage of), gets us a long way....

 

I warn you against believing that advertising is a science, :phones:

Buffy

[Tormod]

Have you considered when a new member shows up for the website to point them to kind of a mission statement of the site and the general consensus/rules within it.

 

I do believe this is being done to some extent already. Guests are welcomed with a message about our forums and a note to sign up, where they are presented with our general rules. After signing up they receive both a PM and an e-mail with a prominent link to our rules page.

 

As for marketing, Hypography is not marketed anywhere AFAIK.

 

Member retention: We can be better here and always have some sort of project in the pipeline. We do launch new features now and then but it is mostly the ongoing discussions that keep this site alive. Since many of our members are students we see strong seasonal variety.

 

And for some reason June 2008 was our best month in years, with almost twice the traffic of June 2007, and the best month on record (which means the best since about 2004)!. I have no idea why but the statistics show that we get lots of traffic from search engines, blogs, and sites like StumbleUpon...so word of mouth is important for a site like ours.

[InfiniteNow]

On your comment about moderators, I'm not sure that you'd find that even a large minority of discussion forums have moderators who "only moderate": that would be the most boring job in the world. We're all here because we enjoy each other's company, and enjoy discussing all of these topics ourselves.

 

I agree, and think you made a very well formulated point above, but let me ask you (and all others) this.

 

Should staff members who are noticably absent from the site, who contribute very little and have, at best, only a tiny and miniscule understanding of the context and momentum of all of the recent posts on which they are being asked to act, be allowed to make and enforce larger decisions such as banishment or suspencion of members?

 

The point being, if the staff member fights for the expulsion of a member based on only a tiny handful of examples, then there is little chance that they have a valid understanding and appreciation (even awareness) of that particular members greater contributions... their overall presence as part of the Hypography landscape are likely to be missed and absent from the decision making process for these irregular staff members, since their overall lack of participation greatly calls into question their familiarity with the case under discussion... I posit that the ideas of inactive staff members be evaluated, but that their ability to leverage changes on posting behavior of members minimized.

 

Basically, the most active staff should have the greatest say when issues such as banishment come to the table.

 

This is just a thought I've been having today. I thought I'd raise it openly for discussion.

[Tormod]

Inow, how do you suggest such a rule be implemented? Ie, how would we distinguish between active and less active moderators?

[InfiniteNow]

Post count. Login records.

 

It's just an idea. Geesh. :)

[Buffy]

Should staff members who are noticably absent from the site, who contribute very little and have, at best, only a tiny and miniscule understanding of the context and momentum of all of the recent posts on which they are being asked to act, be allowed to make and enforce larger decisions such as banishment or suspencion of members?

 

The point being, if the staff member fights for the expulsion of a member based on only a tiny handful of examples, then there is little chance that they have a valid understanding and appreciation (even awareness) of that particular members greater contributions... their overall presence as part of the Hypography landscape are likely to be missed and absent from the decision making process for these irregular staff members, since their overall lack of participation greatly calls into question their familiarity with the case under discussion...

Sounds pretty abstract to me. Probably not worth worrying about unless it actually happens, and quite frankly we have mechanisms to deal with it, there being quite a bit of review and even reversal of such actions, as you may be aware.

 

A beastly ambition, which the gods grant thee t'attain to, :)

Buffy

[sanctus]

Infinite, we do it already in my view. When we discuss a reported post for example, then the ones who know most about given thread and member(s) act.

[InfiniteNow]

It was more just an idle thought I'd had, and saw this thread as an opportunity to share. Nothing serious. Just try to remember that most of the active staff cannot act (anything beyond infraction or moving posts around). That's part of why I asked. So many staff members are no longer active to any great extent, so I imagine (especially the admins) it would be tough to truly understand context.

 

I was just putting it out there. :thumbs_up

 

 

Btw Buffy, yes, I know almost precisely how things work behind the scenes here. Hence, my opening this up for discussion. :D

[Tormod]

Just try to remember that most of the active staff cannot act (anything beyond infraction or moving posts around).

 

This shows that you do not know how the staff works, or what powers they have.

 

I think it's a shame that you take every opportunity to put the work of the moderator team into question. Even here, in a thread which was supposed to be about marketing Hypography.

 

If you want to discuss the staff's work I suggest you do it via PMs or in the Feedback forum rather than hijacking other threads and making thinly veiled accusations.

[InfiniteNow]

This shows that you do not know how the staff works, or what powers they have.

 

I think it's a shame that you take every opportunity to put the work of the moderator team into question. Even here, in a thread which was supposed to be about marketing Hypography.

 

If you want to discuss the staff's work I suggest you do it via PMs or in the Feedback forum rather than hijacking other threads and making thinly veiled accusations.

 

I fear that you BADLY misinterpret my purpose, but I will respectfully STFU as was implicitly requested in your post.

 

 

And btw, T... This IS the feedback forum. :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the neg rep, too. :hihi:

[C1ay]

yes, I know almost precisely how things work behind the scenes here. Hence, my opening this up for discussion.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I pushed for a few changes a while back and don't remember if that was before or after the time you moderated. In the event it was after I'll mention them here for the benefit of our members.

 

One was implementing a new feature in vBulletin that allows all reported posts to automatically create a discussion thread in the moderator's forum for that post. Prior to this all reported posts were only seen by the moderators assigned to that forum. This feature allows all staff members to discuss reported posts and be aware of what is going on with posts that are not in their assigned forums.

 

The second thing I pushed for was implementation of vBulletin's infraction system. It allows warnings or infractions for established offenses according to established rules and also creates a discussion thread for each and a documented history for future reference. It helps to provide a consistent, uniform application of the rules via a point system.

 

Neither of these address another issue in moderating forums like these though and that is the dependency on an all volunteer staff. I have worked a number of forums online as a volunteer and for hire and volunteer staffed forums have some unique issues.

 

In my experience I have generally found the most fair moderation is that which is performed by mere observers of a discussion that are not participants in the discussion themselves. This way the moderator is not on one side of the debate or the other as a participant and giving an apparent favoritism to one side or the other. This only works though when the moderator(s) diligently follow the conversation and its context while abstaining from participation. I have only experienced this as a paid moderator for forums at ZDNet and CNet.

 

In volunteer staffed forums you only get people that read and follow all the posts in a thread that are themselves participants in that thread. In this scenario they have to wear two separate hats and attempt to keep the roles separate which can be a challenge on passionate issues. You also end up with threads that draw no interest from the staff as participants who later have to moderate a reported post having not read or followed the context of the discussion. These situations can make it difficult to provide optimum moderation but that's the price we pay for holding discussions at forums dependent on volunteer staff.

 

All in all I think we do a pretty fair job here but we are always looking for input to provide improvements. In short though, there is not as much unilateral action as we had in the past. We have a system in place so that even the once in a blue moon staff member can bring a matter to the whole staff's attention for discussion and subsequent action. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than some of the other forums I visit.

[InfiniteNow]

Let me first say, thank you, C1ay. I really was just curious to open the dialog, and I appreciate the time you took with your response. A lot.

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. I pushed for a few changes a while back and don't remember if that was before or after the time you moderated. In the event it was after I'll mention them here for the benefit of our members.

 

One was implementing a new feature in vBulletin that allows all reported posts to automatically create a discussion thread in the moderator's forum for that post.

 

<...>

 

The second thing I pushed for was implementation of vBulletin's infraction system.

 

Yes, both of those systems were already in place during my tenure as a mod. They were a huge improvement, as I, like you, can still remember the days before we had those features, and it truly was a night and day difference once they were in place.

 

You did this site a great service by driving that change. :D

 

 

In my experience I have generally found the most fair moderation is that which is performed by mere observers of a discussion that are not participants in the discussion themselves.

That's a really good point, and I hadn't considered that. A mod involved in the discussion has the chance of being biased and "choosing sides," whereas a third party is better equipped to be more objective.

 

 

This only works though when the moderator(s) diligently follow the conversation and its context while abstaining from participation. I have only experienced this as a paid moderator for forums at ZDNet and CNet.

This speaks more closely to the issue I was trying to raise. When I referenced less active staff members, it was in the context of the fact that they would very likely NOT have been diligently following the conversation, due simply to the fact that they haven't been around much. The concern I had is that they might just randomly show up one day, involve themselves immediately in the staff-level debates, and would potentially be too much involved in the decision making process, while only understanding a very small portion of the details being discussed.

 

 

 

All in all I think we do a pretty fair job here but we are always looking for input to provide improvements.

I like you all quite a lot, which is particularly why the reaction above was so shocking to me. I pride myself on my ability to articulate my thoughts clearly and powerfully, but I have most certainly failed in this attempt.

 

You guys do an excellent job. I care about this place. That's why I was offering some ideas that had been bouncing around in my head... at the hope of improving things even more than they already have been thus far.

 

 

In short though, there is not as much unilateral action as we had in the past. We have a system in place so that even the once in a blue moon staff member can bring a matter to the whole staff's attention for discussion and subsequent action.

 

That's just it, though. The infraction system is a huge improvement, as it takes a more automated approach to tracking behavior and implementing punishments. However, sometimes people are banned without worry for infraction build-up, and it can only be done by an Admin (unless that has changed).

 

I had a similar thread a while back where I was trying to address this same issue. I'll say it again just to be sure we are on the same page. When you boil it down, here is what I've been proposing:

 

Moderators tend to be the most active staff members, and they should be given more power to run the site. There seem to be far too many restrictions on a Mod level account. Second, the most active mods should have the greatest weight in the decision making process, since they will inherently have the best understanding of the context of various discussions and the overall site gestalt.

 

That's really all I was driving at. Sorry if I inadvertently got anyone's panties in wad. :cup:

[GAHD]

...let me ask you (and all others) this.

 

Should staff members who are noticably absent from the site...enforce larger decisions such as banishment or suspencion of members?

The great thing about forums, is you can go back and read though past discussions word-for-word. even someone who hasn't participated in a week old thread can go out and read it to inform themselvs....

 

The point being...the ideas of inactive staff members {should} be evaluated, but that their ability to leverage changes on posting behavior of members minimized.

There's this nifty little feature I have access to, I think YOU do too; Find all posts by {user}. When putting my 2c in to any heavyweight decisions, I like to use it to get familliar with the user in question. You can get a pritty good idea just reading the opening lines, and even more if you delve a little deeper and read a few posts or threads from the past. By-and-by, people change very little or atleast very slowly, so a wide sampling, in my opinion, gives a well rounded and informed opinion. Please, tell me if you disagree.

 

As a side point, would you call a user who in over 4 years only felt the need to post a little under 2 thousand times(a few times going months without a post) inactive? Someone who posted less than 1k in 3 years? Food for thought all around, I think.

[InfiniteNow]

Wow, Tormod. Thanks for waking the sleeping dogs and abusing your Administrator privileges by giving me two consecutive neg reps for this thread this morning (on top of the one you already gave me three weeks ago).

 

I must say, I'm rather disgusted at how you've been treating feedback here, including the fact that bugs on the site are going unresolved.

 

You don't exactly make user comments about the site and its functioning a safe and welcoming option for people who wish to share them.

 

By doing this, you're really no better than the wingjobs who come here spouting ridiculous BS and who only listen to people who agree with them.

 

 

But, really? Two straight neg reps... all this time later? Whatever dude. I know it's technically your site, so do with it what you will.

[nutronjon]

I have been on this forum for a little of 3 weeks and although I may or may not be the one for suggestions I think that feedback from anybody could be positive.

 

Have you ever done a study on this forum to see which new users have never been to a forum before or been a member of? And, compared that to the discussions threads they were posting and who the interacted with. Have you considered when a new member shows up for the website to point them to kind of a mission statement of the site and the general consensus/rules within it.

 

Have you ever taken a census of the members who reached lets say a post count of less than 100 and not returned and seen what interaction they had with other members/moderators/administrators? (The reason I ask is so many post have been started by members who have not logged on since forever and have less than 100 post and seemingly disappeared. )

 

One forum I have been in, I never joined but I have perused, has moderators who cannot conduct in the actual threads. They simply moderate. After all that is what a moderator is.

 

Hypography is a great site. The one thing I do see is the fact that for the past 3 years some of the main contributors are still the main contributors. This may be fine. But I was just curious if any studies have been done to examine these different factors and the growth of hypography overall.

 

I was just curious because I am in business and naturally I examine the business aspects of things. I was just curious to what your site is doing to attract new members, more importantly: retain new members, and offer new exciting things to hypography.

 

I think member retention would be one of the things I focused on most. As acquiring new members is the most costly part (advertising, word of mouth, etc) and retaining members is the easier part if done correctly.

 

 

A mission statement is a great idea.

 

I got here, because I was googling something and google lead me to the forums. Then something I said in these forums wound up in a google search and it was disasterous! If I were responsible for the thread, I would want to know how things end up in google searches, and I would want to get as many google references as I could get, but then, would also want to be very careful about the quality of discussions. Nasty, back biting discussions, will attract very different people, from intellectual discussions that are more refined. In fact, nasty, back biting discussions, where the poster is out to humiliate or slay the previous poster, could turn away the very people this forum might want.