I am in the process of upgrading the Interchange software. Was wondering if people pretty much like the current single forum structure, where all preservation/history topics are fair game (within reason), or if you'd like to have multi forums covering different subjects. And, in the latter case, what categories should there be?

Comments are solicited. Feel free to email your comments to me off line if you prefer.

Railway Preservation News
hkading@rypn.org

> I am in the process of upgrading the
> Interchange software. Was wondering if
> people pretty much like the current single
> forum structure, where all
> preservation/history topics are fair game
> (within reason), or if you'd like to have
> multi forums covering different subjects.
> And, in the latter case, what categories
> should there be?

I personally like the present arrangement. There are a whole bunch of reasons why.

- Pleas for help are more likely to reach a larger pool of potential helpers with everybody on the same page. If you break things into subcategories, some experts are going to confine themselves to their area of interest and may not see a post asking for help with something they could help with.

- It's sometimes hard to place a post in a category. This is especially true for newbies asking for help. See above.

- When you break a large group up into smaller subgroups, either the subgroups die or they grow to almost the size of the original "parent" group. Either way it's bad IMHO, since the Interchange in its present form is just about the right size for a person to scan all the recent posts and keep current by visiting approximately once or twice a week. Much more information would get difficult to keep up with.

- This board actually has a pretty narrow focus already. I suppose it could be further broken down into steam, diseasle, rolling stock, right-of-way, structures, and management issues. But I personaly think further division would be counterproductive.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

> I personally like the present arrangement.
> There are a whole bunch of reasons why.

I vote with Matt, for all the same reasons that he provided, especially the part about not always knowing where to post something.

superheater@rrmail.com

> I personally like the present arrangement. <
I think that one forum is big enough to handle
the traffic that is now offered. Untill it grows
much larger, I like the convenience of not
having to guess which forum to use or browse.

104577.651@compuserve.com

Please leave it "as is".

Strasburg Rail Road
kelly@strasburgrailroad.com

My vote is to leave it as it is.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum)


midlandblb@cs.com

The current Interchange structure works exceedingly well; it is a convenient tool for accessing railway history and preservation topics and information. Multiple forums are less convenient and result in the fragmentation of topics and the arbitrary categorization of posts.

First, multiple forums require opening several different Web pages, which is inherently less convenient than opening a single page. A bookkeeping element is also involved to recall which forums the user has previously viewed during a session.

Furthermore, multiple forums require the poster to categorize their material in an arbitrary and subjective manner. There may be no predefined category best tailored to the material, or there may be several equally suitable categories. For example, a post regarding the painting of an operating museumÂ’s Pullman sleeper could be appropriate for forums on museums, tourist lines, passenger equipment, Pullman, and restoration.

Finally, the “search” function, in either its current or future form, serves as a filter for those interested in a particular topic. In effect, the ability to search a unified Interchange itself acts as a personal forum generator, with an infinite variety of topic categories defined by the users themselves.

The unified Interchange forum is convenient and functional. Multiple forums would be more cumbersome and result in the unnecessary fragmentation of information. If it becomes necessary or desirable to institute multiple forums, they would best serve as an optional, adjunct format to the retained unified Interchange.

Cheers,
Keith Albrandt

RyPN Flimsies
kalbrandt@rypn.org

> My vote is to leave it as it is.

> Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum)

Me too.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a


Surviving World Steam Project
james1@pernet.net

> Me too.

> -James Hefner
> Hebrews 10:20a

And me too.

Chris Holombo
Niles Canyon Railway

holombo.chris@ssd.loral.com

> I am in the process of upgrading the
> Interchange software. Was wondering if
> people pretty much like the current single
> forum structure

My vote goes to leaving it as it is. I think it serves us very well.

Howard

SP5623 Black Widow GP9
sp5623@earthlink.net

When you say leave it as is do you mean don't change anything? Or just keep it a single subject forum?

The main objection to the current software is it can't handle more than a couple of thousand posts without really bogging down. The new software should be able to handle everything that's ever been posted on the Interchange, in a searchable form. (This assumes we can fit it all on the server.)

Is that one advantage, all by itself, not worth the upgrade?


Railway Preservation News
hkading@rypn.org

Hume,

> When you say leave it as is do you mean
> don't change anything? Or just keep it a
> single subject forum?

I would read all of the opinions as saying "keep it a single subject forum". Add my vote for that, too, please. I haven't looked in for months, and am not at all daunted by "having to" scan through a longish list of threads.

> The main objection to the current software
> is it can't handle more than a couple of
> thousand posts without really bogging down.
> The new software should be able to handle
> everything that's ever been posted on the
> Interchange, in a searchable form. (This
> assumes we can fit it all on the server.)

Now that's a good reason for updating the software. I'd say go ahead. Just don't bother to set up more than the one subject forum which we all are so comfortable with.

Thanks to you and your collaborating friends for keeping RyPN up so well.

Cheers, Jochen
> Is that one advantage, all by itself, not
> worth the upgrade?

Hume, Eric and Bob,

The forum has grown wonderfully over the last couple of years. It's how I usually start my day on the internet. It has indeed grown longer, but I can still pick and choose the threads I want to read from one site. I don't have to go to multiple forums. It would ruin a good thing. Update the capacity by all means, but leave the forum alone.

Thank you gentlemen, for all the work you put into maintaining this site for all of us to enjoy.

kevin.r.gillespie@verizon.net

> And me too.

> Chris Holombo
> Niles Canyon Railway

Ditto

rrtp@onecliq.net

> Hume, Eric and Bob,

> The forum has grown wonderfully over the
> last couple of years. It's how I usually
> start my day on the internet. It has indeed
> grown longer, but I can still pick and
> choose the threads I want to read from one
> site. I don't have to go to multiple forums.
> It would ruin a good thing. Update the
> capacity by all means, but leave the forum
> alone.

> Thank you gentlemen, for all the work you
> put into maintaining this site for all of us
> to enjoy.
I do agree with KEVIN,,,if is not broke please do not fix it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if there is a problem which are far,,,,and few,,,please leave this forum alone,,,,how long has this forum been working out,,,for you,,,the site is a VERY GOOD SITE,,,this is the first site that I go too,,when turning on the machine,,,,,please leave well enough alone,,,thank you PAT

cprh1b@attbi.com