Hmmm... so the whole purpose of the forum is to make people go somewhere else to get their answers because we don't want to answer their questions here, is that it?

Wow.

Hmmm... so the whole purpose of the forum is to make people go somewhere else to get their answers because we don't want to answer their questions here, is that it? Wow.

No, the point is that there are different mediums better suited to different purposes. The Forum is a great way to ask specific questions and interact with other members, but isn't a great reference resource. It's simply too fragmented, and will always be so. Your implication is that there's no purpose for encyclopedias and other summarized/reviewed reference works, since you can always go and ask your questions on Yahoo Answers.

The example I always come back to is "Live Foods" since that's the area where I could consider myself most expert. If someone new comes into the forum and asks "what should I feed my sunfish", they'll get some responses about live foods, but certainly not the whole picture. Likewise searching on "live foods" will turn up a ton of threads, but many only mention live foods in passing, and there is still no comprehensive "index of live foods". That level of detail just doesn't exist here. Simply answering questions as they come in as separate threads means that people only get part of the answer, and not necessarily the collective wisdom of the entire community (since generally only a few people respond to the query, and not necessarily the top experts.)

Compare that to what you can build out in a wiki system: A single "Live Foods" page with information on why live foods are used, what cultures are commonly kept, what live foods are appropriate for various sizes of fry and fish, etc. That then links to further pages with information about each individual live food species, including how to collect and raise them. That's the kind of detailed and ever-improving resource that simply answering questions as they come in can never provide.

The Forum will always be a place for discussion and asking questions, and I'm not arguing against that at all. If someone has a question "Why did my blackworm culture crash?", the Forum will always be the appropriate place to ask that, and I'll certainly continue to participate in answering those questions. At the same time, being able to point a new member to a good summary by saying, "Hey, have you seen the blackworm article on the wiki? Check it out, then come back and ask follow-up questions here." would be a fantastic way to both build a reference resource, and still provide the welcoming community we have here.

OK folks, let's play nice here...

If someone has a question "Why did my blackworm culture crash?", the Forum will always be the appropriate place to ask that, and I'll certainly continue to participate in answering those questions. At the same time, being able to point a new member to a good summary by saying, "Hey, have you seen the blackworm article on the wiki? Check it out, then come back and ask follow-up questions here." would be a fantastic way to both build a reference resource, and still provide the welcoming community we have here.

This sounds like exactly what I was picturing this FAQ project to look like. As a native fish n00b, I would *love* a central location of references. I mean, I know that there's a great article on darter tanks on the main site somewhere, but it's not easy to find a link to from the front page (I don't think to check the Publication link, I figure it would be under Captive Care). In fact, I almost always end up back at google when I want to look it up. So a mix of compiling the advice found only on the forum and more accessible linking to all of the articles buried on the main site would be ideal, IMO.

OK folks, let's play nice here...

This is nice. You should see us when we play dirty!

I'm still confused. Are you suggesting that this site create it's own wiki style information base, or are you suggesting to out source it to Aqua Wiki? Do you want people to come here? or do you want them to go away and leave you alone?

Who is the forum intended for? How much experience required before someone is allowed to ask a question? And who gets to decide for the forum if that question is worthy or not? Why is one person's "wanna see pictures of my fishing trip" acceptable and someone else's "how do you get rid of algae?" question not? I have yet to read a single thread whose question could NOT have been answered elsewhere.

There is a huge social piece in a forum not found inside an encyclopedia. People come to forums not out of laziness, they come to be a part of group. NANFA should be flattered they come here.

This conversation reminds me of when I was little and I'd want to know how to spell a word, my parents ALWAYS said, "Look it up in the dictionary." If I knew how to look it up in a dictionary, I wouldn't need to, would I? I didn't learn how to spell, or how to use the dictionary. I did learn to stop asking my parents questions. Is that what you want?

Mander, it's funny you mention dictionary and looking up something or not being able to do so. I think the gist of this conversation is that it might be worthwhile for this Forum (and NANFA) to build some kind of comprehensive reference that could be easily searched. That's a monumental task, of course, and involves effort that would parallel both this Forum and the NANFA site. The point is to facilitate and smooth discussions within the Forum. I'm certain it's neither easy nor quick, but it's an interesting thought as a way to deepen and broaden discussion here.

Oh! Thank you Fundulus. See proof for the pudding: a knot head (moi) will ask the same question over and over and over and over until someone says the answer just right.

Annoying, but that's life!

Enjoy!

Mander, it's funny you mention dictionary and looking up something or not being able to do so. I think the gist of this conversation is that it might be worthwhile for this Forum (and NANFA) to build some kind of comprehensive reference that could be easily searched. That's a monumental task, of course, and involves effort that would parallel both this Forum and the NANFA site. The point is to facilitate and smooth discussions within the Forum. I'm certain it's neither easy nor quick, but it's an interesting thought as a way to deepen and broaden discussion here.

Yes, exactly. There is a ton of very useful information on the Forum, but it's not categorized and indexed well enough to make it easy to find later. The threaded discussion format of a Forum just isn't conducive to building a long-term reference resource. You're right, Bruce, building a new reference resource would be a huge job, but potentially worth the effort.

Yes, exactly. There is a ton of very useful information on the Forum, but it's not categorized and indexed well enough to make it easy to find later. The threaded discussion format of a Forum just isn't conducive to building a long-term reference resource. You're right, Bruce, building a new reference resource would be a huge job, but potentially worth the effort.

I agree on all counts. But I wonder, is this one of those, "Belling the Cat" issues? Everyone wants it done, but no one wants to be the one to do it?
If I understand correctly, NANFA is largely a volunteer organization. What kind of volunteer hours would it take to create this type of reference resource? What kind of skills are needed? I would imagine one would need more than just data entry abilities. What would the process be? Would the data be fixed, with only authorized persons able to change it, or more like the Wiki style where anyone can add or subtract from it?

I agree on all counts. But I wonder, is this one of those, "Belling the Cat" issues? Everyone wants it done, but no one wants to be the one to do it?
If I understand correctly, NANFA is largely a volunteer organization. What kind of volunteer hours would it take to create this type of reference resource? What kind of skills are needed? I would imagine one would need more than just data entry abilities. What would the process be? Would the data be fixed, with only authorized persons able to change it, or more like the Wiki style where anyone can add or subtract from it?

Check my post above. I volunteered to set up a trial, and described to some extent how it works.

I had planned to do it this weekend, but my laptop received an unhealthy dose of coffee last week and my girlfriend took her computer out of town. I was unconnected all weekend.

Check my post above. I volunteered to set up a trial, and described to some extent how it works.

I had planned to do it this weekend, but my laptop received an unhealthy dose of coffee last week and my girlfriend took her computer out of town. I was unconnected all weekend.

Excuse me, what you said was that you would try. Try and do have two very different meanings. In my experience try means only that, it does not mean do.

Also, you hinted at the fact that it was a big job and help might be appreciated, yet on the other hand, that it could be done in a weekend. I don't know which it is.

I asked what qualification would be necessary to help because, while I might be an idiot, my friends are not.

Setting up a trial wiki will take only a few hours to configure existing software. Filling out the content, moderating, administering, etc. are the time-consuming parts. I'm planning to set up a trial just to see how the format works, and see if others are willing to help out.

It's much like this forum: The initial install and configuration probably took Drew only a few days. Moderating is the huge day-to-day task that the volunteers handle.

Cheers, Jase

Excuse me, what you said was that you would try. Try and do have two very different meanings. In my experience try means only that, it does not mean do.

"Do... or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

Excuse me, what you said was that you would try. Try and do have two very different meanings. In my experience try means only that, it does not mean do.

My "try" qualifier was about doing it this past weekend (which didn't work out, obviously). I will set up a trial on Wikia within a few days.

Edited by jase, 30 June 2008 - 12:51 PM.

Thanks, Jase!

Look forward to it!

Been thinking on the "Just Chatting" forum. I go to a couple of different sites and I like the one because it DOES have a Off-Topic Forum, and I like this one because it DOESN"T! It's nice to see folks talking about what they came here to talk about. Had someone asked me about the other site, I would have guessed a low estimate of 60 per cent of the posts were in the off-topic. I was surprised to see the stats have it at just over 25%. (It probably wouldn't be that high but we have a few chatters, one logging in 30K post in less than a year!) However, I'm inclined to think the mods spend more than 25 % of their time moderating the off-topic.

Nanfa has the Local Edition, the Show and Tell, and the Welcome forum that lend themselves to "Just Chatting" if people wanted to. There really is a lot here, the more you look the more you see. I guess I'm saying I like the forums they way they are.

Enjoy!

OK, breaking in to offer another perspective.
To me it sounds like what's being propossed is more trouble and effort than the original problem [repetitive questions] warrents.
This is a public forum. There are no requirments of age, experience, intellect or common sense. No matter how awesome your encyclapedia is, those people will continue to post.
True, the moderators delete without mercy whatever they don't deem "relevent", but the carefully worded, fully on topic dumb questions will be get by over and over.
Plus, with less and less experienced posters participating, and the lack of tolerance of topics that don't measure up to individual moderators' undefined preferences, before much longer, the "How many bass can live in a ten gallon tank?" questions will be the only activity left on the forum.
I suggest if those questions annoy you, don't open them.

For the record, I've been using forums pretty much as long as there have been forums. I've participated in dozens of forums spread over like six different topics.
One thing I've learned is, there's always something new to offer, a new member joined, a recent breakthrough in science, or preconceived notion debunked. Reading old threads does not give the latest and best info available. Bumping old threads doesn't seem to help as they are often ignored.
My method is, first check my books, second is Google, then maybe I'll scroll through old posts if I happen to have an hour or two free [as in NEVER], THEN I post a question.
Frankly, on this forum, I'm surprised how often there is little or no response to questions, no matter how old. Seems liike the only way to get some to respond is to ask a dumb question or make an offensive comment.
Then they've got plenty to say.

True, the moderators delete without mercy whatever they don't deem "relevent", but the carefully worded, fully on topic dumb questions will be get by over and over.

I would like to debunk this myth once and for all.

In the month of June a total of 11 posts/topic were deleted. I will break them down below:
One topic was a spammer that made it through.
One topic was about tropical fish (no relevance to N/A natives).
One topic was a closed fish trade.
Two posts had no message (member did not type anything).
Six posts were double posts or requested deletion.

The only person in the month of June who could complain about a deleted post/topic is a member that posted a topic on tropical fish.

We really don't intervene much guys so lets take it easy on the merciless culling of posts/topics talk.

OK, breaking in to offer another perspective.
To me it sounds like what's being propossed is more trouble and effort than the original problem [repetitive questions] warrents.
This is a public forum. There are no requirments of age, experience, intellect or common sense. No matter how awesome your encyclapedia is, those people will continue to post.

Hey Mike, thanks for the input. I think my topic title is a little misleading, or my direction changed a bit as it went along. I'd say the problem isn't the repetition of questions, but the difficulty of finding intelligently-summarized information on a given topic. Take, for, example, the thread on "Black Worms, Tubifex, Whatever". There's a lot of good info in there, but it's spread out over 53 posts, and the title isn't all that indicative of what the content actually is. If you read through the whole thing, you'll get a decent idea of how and why to maintain blackworms, but not nearly as succinctly and completely as you could in a single wikipedia-like entry.

Yes, there will always be repetition of questions, but it would be very nice to have good reference sources to direct people to as answers, rather than trying to re-create the entire answer from scratch each time. Cheers, jase

I would like to debunk this myth once and for all.

Oh, fooey. And I was going to have some fun with it.

Jase, again, I just want to thank you for the efforts you are going through. I look forward to seeing your work soon!

Sorry for the offense. Typing under time limitations and external stress reduces my diplomatic skills.
My observations are based more on past events than the month of June.
In the past month I have not participated much, mostly speed skimming the contents page. Activity in general seems to has declined.
Uland, the examples you gave from June are, obviously, perfectly appropriate for deletion. As we have discussed privately, I have no problem with that type of moderation. By no stretch was that what I had in mind with my less than careful wording above.
My problem is with posts deleted with no explaination and no contact with the author which somebody or group of somebodies didn't think was relevent enough for the topic. It is possible that a quick message to the author would allow him to elaborate on why said post actually was relevent. At least the curtesy of a quick message to inform the author his post is gone and why.
After taking the time to type what the author in his heart believed was a relevent and worthwhile post, it could be somewhat discouraging to later find the post mysteriously gone without explanation.

Really I shoulda jes kep my mouth shut and not draw more negative attention to my name. Feel free to delete both my original remarks as well as this response.