What's wrong with forums?

[Nev_Dull]

The fact that barriers to publishing have been erased brings lots of new worthwhile content in to existence, but also a ton of crap. Can you guess what I'm going to say next?

I couldn't help leaving that opening.

I'm sure this must be true in some niches. I've not examined them all of course.

Do you see any significant quality difference between the big forums and little forums in the webmaster niche?

I was generalizing, but do tend to look a lot of the new forums that get announced here and I haven't seen much to change my point of view.

I don't look at a lot of webmaster forums. However, I don't think size matters (someone had to say it) to quality. In fact I suspect a forum that grows too quickly can lose a lot of what made it a good place to be. It's not unlike a local pub or eatery that experiences sudden success and growth. It can change into a place you no longer enjoy going to.

How do we find out that a forum has a great personality if it's located on page 17 of the search results?

That is a very good question. Search engines are not geared towards basing results on true quality. I suspect most really good forums get their initial growth by word of mouth. If I come across a really good site, blog, or forum, I always tell friends who share that interest. I think we rely too much on search engines and page rankings to find membership. How do small restaurants become noted for their quality? Usually word of mouth, until the reviewer shows up. So there, perhaps what we need are some professional forum reviewers who will promote the best.

Wouldn't a forum have to have a fair number of members to have a personality?

I don't think so. In fact I think it's easier to build a small forum with a vision and a personality. As it grows larger you need to work harder and harder to maintain it.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I seem to have come in late...

In regards to some forums that appear to not be doing well: for some forums their niche is VERY small. This happens in fan forums. A lot. There are some fandoms whose English speaking membership really is only in the thousands and since only a small fraction of fans will ever actually join a forum, the numbers stay small. That's not to describe the forum as dying - it's simply very small. It does mean the admin and staff have to work harder to maintain a reasonable level of posting and the website has to keep bringing in new content to keep visitors coming to the site and make the site number one or two in the niche.

Welcome to the discussion! It's never too late for a new opinion.
You raise two very good points. Why have we become so obsessed with large forums? Why can't we be happy to have a small, intimate little forum? The same goes for posts. I don't know how many complaints I've seen posted from admins who receive only a few posts a day. Unless they're mostly spam or uninteresting one-liners, a few posts is all you need to develop some great discussions. I think a low-volume site gives the admin and members much more time to really consider what they post, and that can only be a good thing.

As for competing with others in the niche? That really does depend on who the competition is - if you have five 'competing' websites and one competing forum in your niche and that forum is in the habit of scraping your content, banning cross-membership and taking pot-shots at everyone they can think of... why would you want your members to link to that forum?

On the other hand, promoting the other related websites is only reasonable - you will get visitors from them and it's only good manners to send visitors their way.

Actually, I would still be happy to link to interesting posts on that other forum. Why? Because it encourages your members, and the members of that other site, to look beyond the pettiness of the staff. (Most of the time, it's the staff of one forum who start, or at least encourage, the shot-taking.) It also helps to raise the view of the entire niche and that's something you can also benefit from. And depending on the niche, the staff rivalry, if kept in check, can also draw visitors.

That said - the forum still has to be easy to navigate, with clear cut guidelines and active mods to make it the best forum it can be, even if it's in a tiny little niche.

I'm with that 120%.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

Hi again Nev_Dull,

Perhaps it will help us to revisit the original questions you asked to open the thread.

It seems that every other post here on TAZ is from someone looking for help getting members, keeping members, or turning visitors into members.

That is, most forum owners seem to want more activity on their forums.

What practical suggestions might we have to help forum owners get what they want?

Much of the advice given to these admins involves adding something else to the forum, be it a blog, a website, twitter, Facebook, and more.

Forum owners are asking for more members. Maybe the thing that needs to be added is more members?

Are forums broken? Is the software inadequate? Or is it something else?

Imho, what's broken is the forum owner cultural group consensus. That is, the lone wolf webmaster mindset. Generally speaking, for most folks, this old fashioned out of date way of looking at the net just isn't up to the current challenge.

Most of the forum owners you referred to in opening this thread are trying to get up and running on their own, and it seem the evidence clearly shows that many or most are unable to accomplish this by themselves.

I'm reminded of the Amish. When somebody needs a barn the community comes together and builds the barn. That's how people of modest means get things done, by working together.

Can technology solve this? Yes and no.

Technology can create a structure that facilitates cooperative action amongst communities.

But that won't help if community members would rather fail than come together, which seems to often be the case in webmasterland.

Yes, a forum is a community. Everybody gets that part. But the forum itself is still an island all by itself out in the middle of the huge ocean we call the net.

Just as the members of a single forum benefit from coming together and working to help each other, forums can come together and help each other too.

 

[cheat_master30]

Forum owners are asking for more members. Maybe the thing that needs to be added is more members?

You're sort of right, but unfortunately the question you raise is both a commonsense one and the biggest problem in forum management, simply because getting more members is arguably the hardest part. People arguably can't say how to add more members.

And when you're given a choice between answering based on something that'd take lots of research (aka, finding out about someone's site and why that particular one doesn't have as many members as intended) or just suggesting to add features (something which can be done without any hard work), obviously the latter is going to crop up more.

Imho, what's broken is the forum owner cultural group consensus. That is, the lone wolf webmaster mindset. Generally speaking, for most folks, this old fashioned out of date way of looking at the net just isn't up to the current challenge.

This is a very good point. In fact, this is the point that's always worried me personally, since it's become obvious that forum success is starting to become more about who you know rather than what you know.

Presumably the prior attitude came from the days when few people knew how to set up a forum or website. Now that anyone can, I'm starting to think social skills and business/marketing might be more important than technical ones.

But that won't help if community members would rather fail than come together, which seems to often be the case in webmasterland.

I have to say, I agree with this point 100%, and its probably one of the main reasons most forums (and sites in general) fail.

I've seen it myself, especially in really competitive markets like the gaming and webmaster ones. The community is split across a whole ton of different sites and forums, and not one of them seems willing to help out another that much. I've actually tried to help out some sites in the same niche before and get the community together (as have a few other people), but many webmasters, even those with completely dead communities seem perfectly content just to let it fail than even accept help.

Just as the members of a single forum benefit from coming together and working to help each other, forums can come together and help each other too.

Agreed. Although again, I've seen a lot of schemes intended for this purpose, and few if any have succeeded long term. Wasn't this the whole point of admin forum exchange programs and multi forum post systems and maybe Zoints and social network integration and what not?

To a degree, it seems the whole forum admin business was founded on similar logic, but went astray.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

Hi Cheat_Master,

You're sort of right, but unfortunately the question you raise is both a commonsense one and the biggest problem in forum management, simply because getting more members is arguably the hardest part.

Yes, getting over that hump, so that we have active conversations that new comers can see and join.

People arguably can't say how to add more members.

Is it really that complicated though?

We all generally agree on the general fundamentals of building traffic to a blog, content and links. Does putting the same content in to forum software instead of blog software really change this equation?

And when you're given a choice between answering based on something that'd take lots of research (aka, finding out about someone's site and why that particular one doesn't have as many members as intended) or just suggesting to add features (something which can be done without any hard work), obviously the latter is going to crop up more.

Yes, technology is the easiest to add, and it's fun, so that's the first suggestion. Content is the next easiest to add, so many or most seem willing and able to do that.

Link building seems to be a weak point for most webmasters. It certainly has been for me.

I just added a viral link building tool to my forum software, and will give it to you guys too if the local authorities permit. (Maybe if I flirt with spamming my pending application will get a little more attention from the local authorities? )

This is a very good point.

Are we even allowed to say that on a forum?

In fact, this is the point that's always worried me personally, since it's become obvious that forum success is starting to become more about who you know rather than what you know.

You're on to something there I think.

Presumably the prior attitude came from the days when few people knew how to set up a forum or website. Now that anyone can, I'm starting to think social skills and business/marketing might be more important than technical ones.

Bingo, bingo, bingo! You are a wise poster!

Consider the history of the net so far. It gets easier and easier to do the technical part. It's now so easy pretty much literally anybody could set up a network of 100 forums.

So, when truly anybody can publish, when there are no barriers to entry, what do we compete on? The quality of our minds, the seriousness with which we take our projects. Technology is becoming invisible, and all that's left is us, brain to brain.

I've seen it myself, especially in really competitive markets like the gaming and webmaster ones. The community is split across a whole ton of different sites and forums, and not one of them seems willing to help out another that much.

Yes, so true. In many ways we don't really get the net yet, and we don't really get that we don't get it.

It's called the InterNET. It's a network, an association, a grouping, a collective. It's about US, not about "me".

We've got the new technology, but not the new mindset to match it just yet. Those who comprehend the reality of this environment will be those most likely to succeed.

I've actually tried to help out some sites in the same niche before and get the community together (as have a few other people), but many webmasters, even those with completely dead communities seem perfectly content just to let it fail than even accept help.

Man, you are reading my mind. A friend and I have just created some very easy to understand and use technology that is directly relevant to the success of every webmaster. We're giving it away totally free.

You can contact 100 webmasters and very personally and politely offer this to them on a silver platter, and be very lucky if 5 of them even reply to your mail to acknowledge the offer.

Agreed. Although again, I've seen a lot of schemes intended for this purpose, and few if any have succeeded long term. Wasn't this the whole point of admin forum exchange programs and multi forum post systems and maybe Zoints and social network integration and what not?

You've got a good point. The problem I face as a software developer is that while I can code tools to facilitate the kind of connections we're discussing, I'm not a shaman. I have very limited ability to get inside people's heads and edit the deeply held group consensus obstructing the use of the technology.

If we build it, will they get it? It's a completely reasonable question.

 

[Librarian2000]

I've seen it myself, especially in really competitive markets like the gaming and webmaster ones. The community is split across a whole ton of different sites and forums, and not one of them seems willing to help out another that much. I've actually tried to help out some sites in the same niche before and get the community together (as have a few other people), but many webmasters, even those with completely dead communities seem perfectly content just to let it fail than even accept help.

I think one aspect of this relates to the underlying reasons some people may have had to even go to the trouble of starting their own forum.

Was it because they saw a need for a particular niche to be filled and they were uniquely qualified to do it?

Or, as in some cases I've seen, they started a forum because their hosting service provided one for free and they're bound and determined to show up the 'big guys who are taking all the glory' or somebody told them they could sell ads and make money doing almost nothing, or they want to 'get back' at other forum's staff who banned them for whatever - not because they are in a position to help the larger community succeed by adding their own unique voice.

Now, I seriously doubt that's the case of people who are here - forum owners and admins who have joined this group have no doubt joined in order to better their ability to manage their communities and hopefully recognize that it isn't a lone wolf effort. The pack will help you survive.

 

[wanksta]

What do you think? Are forums broken? Is the software inadequate? Or is it something else? Maybe the time for forums has just passed. If so, what is replacing them?

No I don't think there is anything wrong with forums I do however believe that we're at an extremely high saturation point in regards to forums. Just think of almost any topic and I bet you there will be at least one or two Big Boards and a handful of smaller forums covering that topic.

Just like business, if you open up the business Phone Directory you can pretty much find any business for whatever need you may have. Now if you want to get into business the first thing you ask yourself is simply, what is going to set me apart from the others in the market I am looking at entering?

There is nothing wrong with forums it's just extremely difficult to get the momentum going now days because there are boards already established for almost everything hence why you read about people on places like TAZ giving advice to new forum owners to add features and do things differently, to set yourself apart from the rest just like in business, spearhead your campaign with a competitive advantage.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Thanks for reiterating the question, Phil. I was just thinking it was about time to do that again. So instead let me take a look at the big tally board and see where we're at.

Based on the direction of the discussion so far, it seems those involved have narrowed sown the problems with forums to two issues (putting aside the already agreed on problem of over saturation). Hopefully, I've captured them with reasonable accuracy.

The structural integrity argument: This proposes the information architecture and organization schemes of forum software need a serious overhaul. Improvements in these areas would make forums more accessible and usable by all visitors. While I can't disagree with this, these will require developers to rethink the whole concept of forums and is unlikely to happen soon. I also have the concern that advances in these areas could move forums into a place beyond the skills of the average forum admin.

The attitude adjustment argument: This proposes the idea that forum admins have to start working together with other admins to create larger communities of forums. To quote John Donne, "no man is an island" and neither should a forum be. By working together, admins can bring more traffic to their door, which seems to be the thing most admins want. This solution doesn't require any changes to the current forum software. However, I'm not sure that changing the mindset of forum owners/admins is any less daunting a challenge.

This argument also seems to be supported by two methodologies, the technology method and the natural selection method.

The first relies on technology to help develop "forum malls" where a number of different forums could co-exist under one umbrella network. The idea is to combine the collective traffic draw from all the forums in the mall and give each forum access to more potential members.

The second relies on the idea that members in a given niche tend to belong to more than one forum in that niche. By acknowledging that fact and encouraging members and visitors to "cross pollenate" among the forums, all of the forums in a niche will improve.

The floor remains open to new suggestions for what it wrong with forums.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

By working together, admins can bring more traffic to their door, which seems to be the thing most admins want. This solution doesn't require any changes to the current forum software.

It doesn't require changes to software, but can be facilitated by software.

Do both the forum owners and forum users see the collection of forums as being part of one thing?

If yes, the forums owners are more likely to work together, and the forum users are more likely to travel from one forum to another within the network.

As example, the forums could all share one domain. And/or the forums could all share the same user interface, and the same graphic design. The system for navigating the network can be in one predictable place on every page of every forum. There could be a central forum whose purpose is discussing the network as a whole.

This one network can be connected with other networks, creating a network of networks, all within the same navigation system.

None of these devices are miracle cures, but there are things that can be done with technology to encourage a larger community.

However, I'm not sure that changing the mindset of forum owners/admins is any less daunting a challenge.

What I described above can be accomplished without undermining the forum owner's authority and autonomy over all the important aspects of their forum. They can be part of a network and still control their topics, policies, membership, mailing list, moderators, logo etc.

But, your point is taken. If one is inside a network but still thinking and acting like a lone wolf, the benefit of the network will be less.

If we stretch the concept a bit, Facebook could almost be seen as a forum network.

Each of the Facebook pages could have been an independent website/forum, as was common before the advent of social media. And 98% of these little sites would have very little traffic.

But by putting all the little sites in to one system, and connecting them all together with a unified interface, all the little tiny websites become one huge thing.

The Facebook "forum network" brings everybody together, and encourages visitors to any one page to explore other pages too, pages they knew nothing about until they entered the system.

It does involve some surrender of total control, as example Facebook users can't be creative website artists and have a completely unique design for their page.

But it should be asked, what's the point of having our own unique site design, if almost nobody ever sees it?

 

[SkepticGuy]

Crowd Gather (the people who started with the General Mayhem forum) is trying the "network of forums" concept though a mixture of wholly and partially owned forums. However, their run-rate is still not yet profitable despite millions in venture capital.

Just a heads up that this is being tried, and from a financial standpoint, appears not to be successful (yet).

 

[cheat_master30]

Crowd Gather (the people who started with the General Mayhem forum) is trying the "network of forums" concept though a mixture of wholly and partially owned forums. However, they're run-rate is still not yet profitable despite millions in venture capital.

Just a heads up that this is being tried, and from a financial standpoint, appears not to be successful (yet).

However, how much of this is due to the differences in the levels of success at each of their forums?

Not trying to be harsh, but they seem to buying quite a few forums which have either died outright or haven't taken off yet, and I wonder whether the differences in general forum activity in each category may make only some of them actually profitable.

But I don't also think that's quite what phil is proposing here, I think he means a sort of network without a single person owning all the constituted sites. A mall owns the floor space and rents it out, it doesn't own the shops brand/content wise. A network is more like a big company owning every brand of shop inside as well as the floorspace, with all that entails. Heck, maybe he means have the forum owners team up like how you've got all these real world states forming the USA or the like. I don't know.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

Thanks SkepticGuy, very useful links, appreciate it. A good contribution to the conversation.

Well, yes, millions of dollars of investment is a big mountain to climb on the way back to profitability.

I'd welcome any additional insights you may have in to their business model. You are referring to freeforums.org, right?

I must admit I'm somewhat dubious about free hosting as a business. The main reason is that free hosting seems to attract users who don't really have much to contribute.

A forum network can assist the growth of all the forums on a network, but...

If everybody on the network just sits there waiting for somebody else to do all the work, then not much interesting is likely to happen. Even a very small price tends to weed many of these folks out.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

But I don't also think that's quite what phil is proposing here, I think he means a sort of network without a single person owning all the constituted sites.

Yes, that's more what I have in mind.

To expand a bit, I see three levels of organization.

1) One Forum - a collection of people

2) A Forum Network - a collection of forums

3) A Network Of Networks - a collection of networks

Within the "network of networks" which contains everything, there could be a variety of business models.

One network owner might own all the forums on their network. Another network owner might give away free forums. Another network owner might "rent space in their mall".

Ideally, the network of networks offers enough to users that they start to see it as "one stop shopping" forum experience. Everything all in one place. Once users are in this system, they increasingly see less and less need to go elsewhere.

As example, if TAZ was connected to a nature forum, and a philosophy forum, that would likely become my little world. I'd be less likely to explore other nature and philosophy forums. It would be easier to learn one system, and stay within it.

Heck, maybe he means have the forum owners team up like how you've got all these real world states forming the USA or the like.

Hey, that's a good example, I like it.

You've pointed to something important.

The entire history of the human race illustrates a progression from "lone wolf" in to bigger and bigger forms of organization. Family => Village => Town => City => Country => Globalization.

That's what human history, the forum marketplace, and all these struggling posts on TAZ are telling us.

For most of us, lone wolf is dead.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

Can anybody actually find the freeforums.org forum network? I see the sales site obviously, but where are the forums? Ok, please tell me how I'm being stupid here, I don't mind!

 

[cheat_master30]

Can anybody actually find the freeforums.org forum network? I see the sales site obviously, but where are the forums? Ok, please tell me how I'm being stupid here, I don't mind!

It's a free forum host. The nearest to a list I can find would be to go to Google and search this:

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=ps...gc.r_pw.&fp=440d4e59f4a603f7&biw=1151&bih=559

Or 'site:freeforums.org'

 

[cheat_master30]

Also, I do have one issue with the network of networks thing... to a degree, it was tried and failed. It was called a 'forum directory'. I guess a bit like DMOZ and TAZ's directories were meant to be.

A more social, more integrated version of this kind of structure could work though. But I don't know how. Presumably, some kind of global sign on for multiple forums (although to be fair, that's done already, and didn't catch on) and some easier way to inform people of updates in each.

But as you can see, it's hard to design this kind of system to be different from the failed ones of the past. It's a fundamentally decent idea, but it's about as difficult as trying to make a global internet currency, something that works in theory but is hard to make popular enough in practice. Keep in mind a system like what Phil wants would probably be like Zoints, indeed, the whole idea of Zoints was once just this, a sort of open forum network/network network thing. As you can tell, it failed to really catch on.

 

[Phil_Tanny]

The nearest to a list I can find would be to go to Google and search this: site:freeforums.org'

Ah, good idea, thanks. I knew I was being stupid.

I visited one forum. As best I can tell from a quick first impression, freeforums.org isn't a forum network, at least not as I use that term.

I couldn't find any navigation device that would allow me to explore other forums from the forum I'm on. If you see such a device, please correct me.

 

[SkepticGuy]

But I don't also think that's quite what phil is proposing here...

Certainly. But I think close enough to show that a "network" of 147 forums and two free forum hosting services are having significant difficulty realizing a monthly profitability.

I'd welcome any additional insights you may have in to their business model. You are referring to freeforums.org, right?

That's one of their properties. They also own or financially control 147 domain-specific topical forums/boards. In addition, they own two other free-forum services; forumer.com and very recently, yuku.com (formerly EZboards.com).

Their SEC filings indicate their revenue is not even to the point of covering the CEO's salary. So from a business model standpoint, coming from someone who has worked with VC people and acquired VC funding, I'm somewhat at a loss as to explain how they've been able to get the funding they received.

As far as I can tell, their business model appears to be little more than extending the hopeful intentions of genmay.com (wide open unchecked discussion) to hundreds of acquired domains, with little attention to quality. This seems to be with the hope that a reach of 6+ million global unique users brings in advertising dollars. Well, because of the low quality, it looks like their expectations for ad revenue were way too high.


The only known "forum networks" that have succeeded financially are AOL and CompuServe. But "online" was a very, very different thing when those company's forums were revenue earners -AND- there was a strong focus on consistent quality on all forums.

If a forum network is to have any hope, that's the deciding factor, quality. SOMEONE needs to be in charge of ensuring all forums adhere to basic standards of quality, in the same manner as a Home Owner's Association.

 

[rusty105]

If a forum network is to have any hope, that's the deciding factor, quality. SOMEONE needs to be in charge of ensuring all forums adhere to basic standards of quality, in the same manner as a Home Owner's Association.

OK, so at this point I will bring up Internet Brands (IB) and verticalScope (VS) both own MANY forums across several different verticals. They both include their other properties in the footers of their forums, so I would think backlinking would be working out for them. They seem to be pulling this off in a grand way, yes? While some of their forums tanked after acquisition, most likely do to member resent , most of their forums are doing well, and neither seem slow to acquire more forums. How is it working for them. True, they mostly but mature forums, but those can die as well. What is their secret? I for one, don't like their business model, but lets keep that out of this. How do they keep the forums alive?

 

[SkepticGuy]

OK, so at this point I will bring up Internet Brands (IB) and verticalScope (VS) both own MANY forums across several different verticals.
>snip<
What is their secret?

Before going all entrepreneur, I ran the interactive/digital department of two fair sized agencies, one with clients who collectively spent more $60 million a quarter in online advertising.

To me, their "secret" is immediately apparent... the content attracts advertisers. While not all of their sites feature forums, many do, and some are active. But in almost all cases with their online properties, there is quality advertiser-friendly content in many retail verticals in front of the user-generated forums.

Revenue makes many things possible.