The future of forums?

[zappaDPJ]

Searching for images by user depends on what you're trying to do - if you know who it is, maybe go to their profile. If it's an image in a post... how do you want to search it?

The only practical search term is global, one that brings up all the images uploaded by a particular user or uploaded to an individual forum category. It's limited but very useful if you want to reuse an image or use an image elsewhere, or perform a check if you suspect a user of uploading inappropriate content.

I guess it could serve as a rudimentary album. Looking through a user's uploaded images can sometimes be more entertaining than reading their posts

 

[Pete]

If you're talking about uploaded files, this is something existing platforms already have. (At least, SMF 2.0 has this. It just doesn't come with a snazzy preview but that's fixable)

If we're getting into things posted in posts as images, that's a different ball of wax and incidentally something I was planning to implement from a moderation perspective - a place where any links or images that aren't attachments can be viewed quickly to skim through for inappropriate content.

 

[zappaDPJ]

I could be wrong but I think it's fairly unique to SMF. The ability to scan for links would be very useful.

 

[Nev_Dull]

So I started from SMF and started building a ton of new functionality on top. My particular use case is roleplay forums - where you need subaccounts, where you can have an account and various 'accounts' that you can post under in different places, where each of the accounts has its own avatar. Where you're looking at the site as one of your personas and see a theme that fits the character - one minute you're looking at the site as Harry Potter, with a gold/red theme, and access to Gryffindor only areas, next you're Draco Malfoy, tinged in silver and green, and seeing only the Slytherin areas, but still on the same account.

I like the idea. It also sounds like a whole lot of work for a very small segment of forum buyers. I can see it working for someone building what is essentially a mod for an existing forum software. I'm not convinced it's something a developer like VB or XF or IPS would do, creating multiple flavours of their software for specific purposes.

Flavours of software dedicated to purpose is not a new idea - Ubuntu does it, where you have the core Ubuntu, KDE-based (Kubuntu), XFCE-based (Xubuntu), education-based (Edubuntu), MythTV/DVR (Mythbuntu)... heck, every Linux distro is a flavour of Linux as an overarching ecosystem. Same concept, different scale.

Linux is a good platform to look at. You are right, there are different version of the same linux aimed at different use cases. However, you can create any of those by using the base install and adding the appropriate suite of software. I can see the same thing working for forums. You buy a base forum software, then purchase and install modules to get the forum you want. I'm not talking about the current plugin system where you can add a new feature to your existing forum. This would be something you'd do up front, as you build the forum, because many of the modules would make fundamental changes to how the forum works (like your virtual account modifications). There could be some that could be applied later (like a GDPR module to add consent) but primarily it would be a system for building a new forum.

Again, not being a developer. I don't know how doable it is for forums. It is something that is available in the CMS world. You purchase the base software, then customize it with the features you need for your use.

 

[Pete]

It also sounds like a whole lot of work for a very small segment of forum buyers. I can see it working for someone building what is essentially a mod for an existing forum software. I'm not convinced it's something a developer like VB or XF or IPS would do, creating multiple flavours of their software for specific purposes.

It is a lot of work - but since it's for my forum, why not?

As for the developers of the core platforms, it's doubtful - but there's still untapped markets for forum softwares out there.

You buy a base forum software, then purchase and install modules to get the forum you want.

Given that this has literally been the case for IPS for years, and has been broadly the situation for, well, all of the forum platforms as long as there's been addons, I can't suggest that it's working out that well.

because many of the modules would make fundamental changes to how the forum works

And here's the problem. Those modules cannot play nicely unless they barely scratch the surface of the platform. This is the problem we already have today, and why this approach doesn't work.

I don't know how doable it is for forums. It is something that is available in the CMS world. You purchase the base software, then customize it with the features you need for your use.

It doesn't work vastly better there either, at least based on the amount of effort I see going on reimplementing the same things over and over and over.

 

[BlackSpot]

Don't ever put a WP page to supplement the forum. We had "Any Questions" that totally diluted Art Discussion. I accidentally deleted it due to a spam post, and no one bothered to put it back. The WP gallery was just another place for unpaid admin to check for spam. Keep everything in house and clean. Content will always draw people in.

 

[Nev_Dull]

By CMS, I don't mean things like Wordpress, which is just a framework to present your site. I mean real CMS, things like SiteCore, Documentum, etc. Those type of systems are kind of a hybrid between the two ideas. They offer flavoured solutions to serve specific needs (e.g., for healthcare, for education, or for government) but those solutions are comprised of industry specific modules added to the core system.

 

[Pete]

I guess what I'm getting at is that while there will be generic solutions out there that can be tailored, for some untapped markets the existing tailoring doesn't suffice either because it doesn't go far enough and/or isn't maintainable.

I'm not suggesting that the core players in the forum market need to be the one offering the more tailored or flavoured solutions, but that someone needs to - because an increasing amount of the forum market is being taken up by social media and the only way to combat that as far as I can tell is to be able to have an offering that cannot be matched by the social media venues.

 

[doubt]

I agree with that and I think one of the primary reasons for it is developers developing for themselves rather than for the end user.

That says it all.

 

[cheat_master30]

I agree with that and I think one of the primary reasons for it is developers developing for themselves rather than for the end user.

It's basically the biggest pitfall open source projects run into really. Which is fine, the model can work (and does work in many situations). But it's also why it'll never completely take over.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I'm not suggesting that the core players in the forum market need to be the one offering the more tailored or flavoured solutions, but that someone needs to - because an increasing amount of the forum market is being taken up by social media and the only way to combat that as far as I can tell is to be able to have an offering that cannot be matched by the social media venues.

I see your point there and I agree completely. I guess I was talking more about the mass market forum software developers, rather than the boutique ones. There is definitely a market for some specialized solutions.

 

[Pete]

It's basically the biggest pitfall open source projects run into really. Which is fine, the model can work (and does work in many situations). But it's also why it'll never completely take over.

A lot of open source projects start out as developers building what they need in the first place; a lot of non-developers seem to assume that developers are not also end-users, because they often are.

That said, there is an awful pitfall that happens here, where it gets to a point of 'being good enough to ship' and developers often have a very different mindset on that particular point to, well, everyone else.

The second major pitfall open source falls into is the over-democratisation of the project, where everyone has a say and everyone's input is taken into account, which usually ends up being the recipe for a platform that tries to do a ton of things and does all of them to a mediocre standard.

That said, commercial projects with horrific user interfaces and bad user interactions can and do exist and be hugely financially viable. All I'm going to say there is 'Lotus Notes'.

 

[Nev_Dull]

There's no need for that sort of language, mister. If you were on my forum and said L---- N----, you'd be banned. ( I still have nightmares...)

I don't think there's a huge difference between open and closed source development when it comes to forgetting the end user. If anything, commercial developers are more likely to have the project affected by budget and time constraints, resulting in half-baked solutions. (We won't mention any version 5 of some software here).

 

[Pete]

I have the interesting fortune that I work for a company that lives and breathes open source, so I get to see both sides of that particular coin. It's an interesting life I lead.

 

[davert]

I wonder ... one of the first posts reminded me of the old WebBBS. Some of you may remember it; it put the “forum things” into the background and ended up as a conversation, threaded and indented, with minimal formatting. I look now at Xenforo and IPB and even SMF and I see a bunch of boxes, where people reply with two-line comments (see Pete's just above) and yet there's two inches of space taken up because we need the picture, name, role, two icons, and three stats about Pete in the left, no matter what. The Quote and Reply buttons are medium gray on light gray.

The conversation gets lost in the gimmicks in modern forum software. People whine that the forums look “old.” I'm on IPB again, and while support is great, I've already seen a hint of that “if you deviate, we can't help you” attitude. With Xenforo, I didn't want to change much until version 2 was out. In any case, you can go nuts skinning, because of how complicated everything is, and in the end you might have something set up to specs when an upgrade wipes it out (or at least makes it hard to move over).

I think it's interesting to see https://forum.heatinghelp.com/discu...mall-system-head-calc-changes-at-varied-flows — I don't know what he's running (used to be webbs) but note how much more compact it is. You can read more easily. (Easier still if signatures were de-emphasized.)

I wonder if some of what we're seeing with forums is the result of excess graphical buildup. It's harder to scroll through, and lack of indentation makes it harder to figure out who's responding to who.

Just some thoughts... I use SMF and IPB now and have used UBB, WebBBS, and Xenforo, and found WebBBS was the easiest to get a conversation going with.

 

[Pete]

I don't know what he's running (used to be webbs) but note how much more compact it is.

It's a skinned Vanilla Forum. And yes, for some cases you absolutely can focus on the content - but for a lot of forums, there is a surprising amount of wind resistance attached to the conventional 'huge' postbit/poster info block. I think there's a subtle hint about encouraging longer posts there - yes, that one point above is indeed shorter than the sidebar, but for a goodly number of my posts that's not always the case!

That link you mention has a different problem where partway through the thread, it stops being clear whether the postbit relates to the post above or the post below.

I think it's been part of the subtle appeal of FB and Twitter in particular: there isn't a lot of obvious 'stuff' around the poster so it's more about the content (and leaves plenty of room for ads).

I will also note that Discourse and NodeBB have compacted the poster area significantly in line with the kinds of look you're thinking, but I personally find (being the forum dinosaur that I am) that it goes too far down the minimalist route.

I find I have a different problem: the use case I talk about in this thread is a specific subset of forums, which habitually attracts people that are artistically inclined. Going *big* on avatars and signatures is encouraged, partially because a lot of content will actually be long form anyway and partially because on RP forums more than I guess 'more traditional mainstream forums', the poster area is a huge focus for 'brand identity' of the poster. It's long been thought that people recognise other posters by avatar before username, for similar effect.

I don't know, though, it's like despite forums existing for a couple of decades in the format we've been using them, we don't understand them at all.

 

[Nev_Dull]

The problem with that model is mobile. Everyone is telling us that mobile is the present and the future. I don't necessarily buy that, but I do think there should be a separate, mobile UI that makes it easier for mobile users to enter content and maximizes the content they get on the screen. Responsive doesn't go far enough and apps are just another patch.

 

[Pete]

The problem with that model is mobile.

Forums in general, sure, mobile is the way to go. No argument, because the dopamine feedback cycle is a thing as is content on the go.

Roleplay forums? Very different kettle of fish. A typical short post is multiple paragraphs long, long posts can be literal screenfuls of text - and the users are the ones who love themselves some big avatars and big signatures. It's not true for *all* RP forums but it's certainly true for a decent subset that mobile simply isn't much of a consideration because the content form doesn't work on mobile (as much as you *can* write long posts on mobile, the reality is that this crowd *doesn't*), and they're sufficiently artistically inclined that they do want big avatars and mobile is not the consideration.

But I'm lucky; I'm well aware this is a niche not everyone else is working with.

 

[davert]

First, thanks for the ID, Pete. I was wondering what they were using! It looks “different.”

It occurred to me that WebBBS (which that site had used until recently) does look like something modern: Disqus, which you've seen as a news-site comments handler. Not ideal for roleplaying, I'm sure, but OK for mobile, and it splits threads by hierarchy... just like Facebook but using much less space and much much much less “fat.” (Facebook is very demanding of an Internet connection, and yet ... )

What are the advantages of Facebook over forums? I think the threaded view is one. Emphasizing content over trivia is another — you see the person’s icon and name but nothing else, and the only options are like and reply. Perhaps if the mainstream forums tried these ideas as an option, they could catch on better. Critical mass is the other item... where regular forums can't really compete unless they're already going.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Roleplay forums? Very different kettle of fish. A typical short post is multiple paragraphs long, long posts can be literal screenfuls of text - and the users are the ones who love themselves some big avatars and big signatures.

I hear that. They aren't the only type of forum where mobile doesn't really work. And there's another opportunity for forums to advance. I'd like to see more ability for people to easily roll their own UI to suit their specific needs. If they can work with HTML, they should be able to build their own basic templates, then insert the forum content where they want it to appear.