SeaMonkey Forum Setup

Post by **BenBasson** » February 5th, 2006, 5:03 pm

BenoitRen wrote:Whether SeaMonkey has four forums or one, it will take roughly the same space on the server.

Your point? It's not like server space matters since ten years ago. I'm talking about logical space (clutter).

Post by **Nitin** » February 6th, 2006, 1:16 am

jasonb wrote:Why do the above exist? Given how low some of those volumes are, why do we have separate categories for Minimo, Mozilla Marketing, and Calendar? Let's combine them into one category for all three.

Are we arguing based on reason or emotion?

Post by **old jasonb** » February 6th, 2006, 6:19 am

> There's clearly a distinction between Minimo and Camino. Consolidation between these, regardless of traffic just doesn't make any sense

Just as I clearly see a distinction between SeaMonkey Features and SeaMonkey General. You can't arbitrarily dismiss traffic on the one hand, and then argue for something on the basis of traffic on the other. As I've said before, don't just throw out "traffic" without being able to clearly define the way in which you're using that to make your decision.

> neither gets enough traffic for it to matter where the thread ends up.

Again, what does traffic have to do with this? If I'm looking for a new feature, I don't look in General, I look in features. The name of the forum tells me in which one to look for threads that get created...

> The argument is that if you only have a dozen new threads in a day, they might as well all be in one place.

So - what is the cut-off? Less than 20 threads then consolidate? Again, though, that still doesn't tell me why you wouldn't consolidate other threads that also meet this "low thread" criteria.

> Yeah, except SeaMonkey Features has been open for three extra years.

But, a) We don't have any metrics to show posts over periods of time. Other than a "touchy feely intuition" that some places have more volume right now where are the metrics from which you've been able to draw this objective statement?; and b) Again - so what? Give me a number under which, if there are less posts than that per day, consolidation should happen; over that number things are fine. Then, also give me reasons why some forums shouldn't be affected by post volume at all and should stay as they are.

> Are we arguing based on reason or emotion?

I'm arguing based on reason. I have yet to see any clearly defined set of criteria for what's being considered. Repeating "low volume", without giving actual numbers as a basis for that low volume, or saying why some forums should be controlled by that while others can ignore it altogether, doesn't point to a reasoned analysis or very clear thinking.

Post by **BenBasson** » February 6th, 2006, 8:02 am

jasonb wrote:Just as I clearly see a distinction between SeaMonkey Features and SeaMonkey General.

Why, though? Feature requests end up in General, as do discussions about themes, differences with Firefox, extensions, marketing, etc. The features and bug forums are barely used at all, so I see it as needless categorisation. Everyone would benefit from those posts being in General, since they'd have to look in fewer places for a tiny amount of new content.

jasonb wrote:So - what is the cut-off? Less than 20 threads then consolidate? Again, though, that still doesn't tell me why you wouldn't consolidate other threads that also meet this "low thread" criteria.

SeaMonkey General and SeaMonkey features are largely the same thing. Camino and Minimo are not. It doesn't matter how many posts they get, there's a community for each that needs to be able to find content easily. The semantic separation of the SeaMonkey forums is pretty pointless considering the volume of posts, the same people are just looking in four places instead of one.

therube · Post by **therube** » February 6th, 2006, 9:34 am

Ok, here is one advantage I see to lessening the number of SM forums ...

Less likely to have crossposts.

BenoitRen · Post by **BenoitRen** » February 6th, 2006, 10:19 am

Why do the above exist? Given how low some of those volumes are, why do we have separate categories for Minimo, Mozilla Marketing, and Calendar?

Because they're different products.

Look what I found:

Other Applications and Distributions
Composer, ChatZilla and other Mozilla applications, along with Netscape, Galeon, K-Meleon and other products.

Clearly there is a forum where multiple products are being discussed. So projects like Minimo could fit there.

Your point?

I said that in case we were talking about server space.

If you mean vertical space, well, it won't make that much of a difference to people with huge resolutions (1024x768 and up). I don't have that, but I'm not complaining, but then again, I'm a minority, and I like SeaMonkey.

Ok, here is one advantage I see to lessening the number of SM forums ...

Less likely to have crossposts.

To a degree, but cross-posts are largely between SeaMonkey Support and one of SeaMonkey's product forums.

Post by **BenBasson** » February 6th, 2006, 10:26 am

BenoitRen wrote:Look what I found:
Other Applications and Distributions
Composer, ChatZilla and other Mozilla applications, along with Netscape, Galeon, K-Meleon and other products.

Clearly there is a forum where multiple products are being discussed. So projects like Minimo could fit there.

Not really. Camino and Minimo rightfully demand much more atttention than any of those.

Post by **old jasonb** » February 7th, 2006, 6:20 am

Nobody has yet stated any kind of objective criteria / metrics for any of this. I feel as if trying to get any kind of "business plan" / rationalization out of this is useless. Pretend that you're trying to convince the president of a company of doing this. Giving any of the reasons so far, without backing it up with numbers and better analysis, wouldn't get you anywhere.

This shouldn't be all that hard to do - if what you're saying makes sense. I could argue the other side and come up with something much more concrete than anything that's been said so far - but I'm not going to do that, since it should be up to the people who are trying to change things to clearly show what's going on. And without simple generalizations and nothing more than restatements of general opinion.

Why is low volume bad and high volume good? If you ask me, Firefox has too much traffic. It's confusing. (Slight devil's advocate there, but not totally.)

Thumper · Post by **Thumper** » February 7th, 2006, 7:51 am

So MozillaZine is a business now?

Why is low volume bad and high volume good?

Do you want this argued from a political, economical or psychological point of view?

This shouldn't be all that hard to do - if what you're saying makes sense.

If those arguing against consolidation were prepared to accept a few obvious statements of fact (such as the board having too many barely-used forums, Seamonkey having an artificially-high number because of its legacy and conversation about certain topics being impossible when the potential audience are too thinly spread out) then this would have been settled by now.

- Chris

Post by **old jasonb** » February 7th, 2006, 10:34 am

> So MozillaZine is a business now?

Certainly not. Do you think, then, that there's nothing of reasonable value that can be gained from business practices?

> Do you want this argued from a political, economical or psychological point of view?

I'd like it argued from an objective perspective, backed up with numbers and analysis - rather than totally subjective statements that rely on initial intuitive agreement, that can vary from person to person. As it is, the people in favour of this are simply stating "!" and expecting that to be a perfectly reasonable stance. Also, because people seem to be arguing different things at different times - but only in relation to what is currently being said against it. I'd like something consistent and rational. If X and Y then we should do this. I'm reasonable and more than willing to listen to something logical that could convince me.

> such as the board having too many barely-used forums

Again. (And again, and again.) Please objectively clarify "barely used forums" into a static number that I can deal with. If number of posts < X, then it is barely used and should be dispensed with (and also clarify why "barely used" necessarily means that it should be dispensed with) - unless it serves a particular function Y. No such number has been given (not even a guesstimate), nor has the issue of other forums with less traffic *not* needing to be consolidated (seemingly "just because they're not SeaMonkey") been properly addressed.

> Composer, ChatZilla and other Mozilla applications, along with Netscape, Galeon, K-Meleon and other products.

Thank you, BenoitRen! Clearly, Composer, ChatZilla, Galeon, K-Meleon, etc., are different products. By rejecting the idea that Minimo should not be consolidated into some other forum (based on traffic - which seems to be the "wildcard" that people keep pulling out of their hat but then not going along with when I mention it in the context of anything not-SeaMonkey) - by rejecting that they should not be consolidated because they are different products, this clearly flies against any reasoning for why these different products are acceptably lumped together under a single forum.

("Other Applications and Distributions" has 4062 posts, "Minimo" has 862.)

All I'm asking for is a clearly defined action plan that explains why things are as they are, and why they should change - one that doesn't just arbitararily decide to implement "this plan" without reasoning it out first.

Thumper · Post by **Thumper** » February 7th, 2006, 10:57 am

You're deliberately asking for hard statistical evidence and an "action plan" and ignoring the kind of common sense which everyone else is applying because you know nobody actually cares enough to compile it.

- Chris

Pim · Post by **Pim** » February 7th, 2006, 12:07 pm

One question.
If the forums are pruned so that we end up with, say, two SeaMonkey forums instead of five, does that mean that the content now there in those removed forums will be gone? Or can the threads be moved, so that after the reshuffle, the same info will be there, only in fewer forums?

Post by **Nitin** » February 7th, 2006, 12:36 pm

Pim wrote:One question.
If the forums are pruned so that we end up with, say, two SeaMonkey forums instead of five, does that mean that the content now there in those removed forums will be gone? Or can the threads be moved, so that after the reshuffle, the same info will be there, only in fewer forums?

If and when forums are merged, so would their posts. Nothing would be lost.

Thumper wrote:You're deliberately asking for hard statistical evidence and an "action plan" and ignoring the kind of common sense which everyone else is applying

I agree.
I'll just bump the old thread about this in mod forum so Kerz can take a look at this. After all, statisticts and plans wont matter much once he's made up his mind

therube · Post by **therube** » February 7th, 2006, 4:50 pm

Looking over new threads the last number of days, & kind of paying attention to what is going where, it appears that merging of forums won't really matter one way or the other.

But, that said, I have no problem with the way things are now. I actually like it this way - contrary to most others it seems. I do not mind minimal or even no posts in a particular forum on a particular day. Nor is the need to scroll down to an appropriate forum bothersome to me.

I would much rather that you did not base logins upon IP's (as I believe is the case :wink:

).

"Loosing Log In Status (Login Logout Logged)"
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=275352

Hendikins · Post by **Hendikins** » February 7th, 2006, 5:39 pm

Off-topic, but logins are cookie based, not IP based.