Ran,

  Whatever you decide to do is fine by me. I love the site. I agree that improving the search capabilities is a top priority. I also think making it easier for photo posting is worthwhile.

   I wouldn't  waste much time on a separate OT site. People can ignore them easily.

This may be way off the gist of the responses to this thread but I'm posting it anyway probably because I also had a fairly comprehensive phone discussion about all this with Ran Morrissett yesterday.

I should preface by saying I'm a dunce on computer technology and Ran says actually he is too.

But that probably isn't of much matter since we were basically discussing how to make this entire website better and not just its discussion group section. At least I think that's what we were discussing.  

If so, look at it this way-----

The Discussion Group is probably most of what makes this website notable, well-known, controversial, necessary, whatever.

But is the discussion group the only element of this site that can be used, or can potentially be used as a really good resource tool?

In other words, does the Discussion Group dominate other areas and other elements of this website (to the detriment of those other areas and elements) that could be better used as a resource of information not just for our little band of app 1,500 registrants (who are the only ones who can actively discuss anything on here) but for all the rest in the world who would like to use this website (or some tool like it) as a resource of information or direction in all things to do with golf course architecture?

To me that is the larger question we should all address as to the improvement and the future of this website.

To even imagine how that might happen or happen better I think we should discuss what-all an entity like this one could ultimately do to either help or influence architecture, architects, or absolutely anyone else in the world who may be even remotely interested in the subject.

This brings up another hugely fundamental question and that is----should this website and its particpants be something of an advocacy group or should this website be somewhat neutral in opinion and in information dessemination?

The other thing I think Ran and I discussed is better ways to produce real quality and quantity content (architectural content of all kinds) on this website.

We probably need a whole lot more quality volunteers to produce far more research material, far more "In My Opinion" pieces, more "My Home Course" pieces etc, etc, et al.

And then this website should talk about linking itself onto the websites of other important entities and linking other important entities onto this website.

What golf course architecture needs now is not just a series of unlinked information entities but a really good information highway that any dunce can find easily and find his way around on to get what he's looking for really easily and really well.

The technology is out there to do this but we need to figure out how to structure that technology together into a super easy access mechanism that links everything of interest and usefulness.

I suggest we continue to foster the website as a single (albeit loosely connected) community.  Many of the more technologically advanced sites splinter participants to the point that they really are seperate groups that do not deal with each other much.  

1.  I think a single discussion group is a strength of this site.  It creates a more uniform experience among participants and allows people to develop relationships with each other.  I would not create seperate groups.

2.  For me, the most valuable part of this site is that it is a terrific resource for finding out about courses in a particular area of the world.  I would love to see a section entitled "Golf Course Comments and Photographs" that would organize such commentary and pictures.  Bombsquadgolf.com has a section that provides a model for this idea.

3.  Informational Threads - I have seen other discussion groups with some informational threads near the top.  Some recurring threads might make sense, such as:

1.  How to post pictures
2.  Who are you guys?
3.  Aerial of the Day Summary
4.  Expectations of posters

I think a single discussion group is a strength of this site.  It creates a more uniform experience among participants and allows people to develop relationships with each other.  I would not create separate groups.

This is the whole point of the discussion group. It is possible that we are fine and knowledgable group of fellows, but without the excellent design of this board, we would be nowhere.

At this point I am going to refrain from dorking out with a lecture on social software, interaction design, and Marshall McLuhan, and just let Mr. Topp's eloquent summation speak for itself.

I think a single discussion group is a strength of this site.  It creates a more uniform experience among participants and allows people to develop relationships with each other.  I would not create separate groups.

I agree 100%...just look at this site for an example of slicing the pizza into too many pieces:

How many more subforums can we make: GolfWRX discussion board

I'm surprised they haven't subdivided the equipment forums further by left/right handed players or shaft flexes.

This comment is probably superfluous given the taste of our board's owner, but an eyesore like this site is probably not a good idea.

The simple and elegant TravelGolf.com site

Kalen,

86% of the posts in that forum are in two sections.  One section hasn't had a post since January, and another hasn't had a post since February.  So I actually think your example demonstrates the fact that slicing the pie too small is often counter-productive.

That being said, yes there would need to be a moderator to move threads around to make sure they are put in the right section and move them if needs be.  It would be a little more work upfront, but with a good FAQ section and other commonly asked question section, it would avoid a lot of the repetiviness we see on this site.

And therein lies the problem with suggestions for separation of forums.  This site has never had a paid moderator, and I have to believe it never will.  Asking Ran, or Ben or Tommy or another volunteer, to do the type of moderation required to make this works just seems like a lot to expect.

Thus I continue to say this site ain't broke.  Aw heck, in a perfect world I'd go along with those wanting a more effective search feature - and it seems like that's gonna happen automatically with the "upgrade" Ran describes.

But other than that, well... I'm still with Mike Hendren.

TH

No real suggestions, just wanted to say thanks.

Thanks. A lot. Your site has made a substantive impact on my life.

Ran - your site software upgrade news prompted me to (belatedly) donate to your site. My sincere thanks to you and all the participants of this unique site for all the valuable knowledge you so freely dispense.

My 2 cents are as follows:

1. Please establish a separate GCA sub-forum and a General Golf Topics Sub-forum. I think both sub-forums will thrive.

2. Keep a lid on a total number of GCA.com members. Otherwise I fear that the post quality will drop precipitously (I have seen it happen in other forums).

3. Post more often, if you can!!!

Mark:

Your suggestion would assume that one's sole and only aim in participation here is to learn about architecture.

This site has had a large impact on my life as well, as it has my friend George.  And only a part of it has had anything to do with architectural learning.

And before Kavanaugh has an access-related conniption fit, no, that's not what I mean either.

By hook or by crook, it's become a place to BS with friends.  I try to make such not detract from the learning, but if people are bothered by this, then it will do so for them.

I'm just one that does belive the site is not broken and really doesn't need fixing.  I also find the fixes to impose a burden on the moderators that doesn't seem right.

But I guess that's enough of this issue, which has been beaten more to death than what's what at Merion, relatively!  What one comes to the site for determines his take on this issue.

I just don't think there's any one definitive way one has to take this site.

TH

I am another that thinks Tom Paul is on a very good track.  With all this knowledge on hand could we be doing more in terms of adding to the available Golf Architecture knowledge?

Can anyone think of some way to encourage more of the "heavy lifting" type contributions to the site?  Also How should this increasingly interesting information be presented?

 

i like the wikipedia concept, but i hate to think how folks might carve out "expert territory" for themselves.. and who's to say what's right in an "art form" .. will gca.com become The Salon, curator of the only accepted way or thought?
 
very slow changes are preferred..

certainly the undivided Discussion group serves a great purpose in exposing current thoughts on a myriad of subjects.. truly liberal arts and sciences, no better way in my opinion to become educated or at least exposed to new things.. isn't a pre-requisite to learning, learning what you don't know?

give us practical tools to develop and maintain accurate golfclub information and knowledge.. that's all an atlas can do..  leave opinion in the fleeting world of forums