Is the Forum a repository or a community?

[BrianShaw]

OK, Randy made his snide comment and Brian enjoyed it. You both seem to have missed the point.

Stone made a claim. I don't feel obligated to investigate his claim via searching or in-person research. The question I asked was intended to lead him into discovering for himself that, ultimately, those "younger people on mobile devices" have all the information available they need. No quirks of those devices stands their way. Mine was essentially a leading question. The burden of supporting his claim falls on him.

This may reflect the later posts where discussion of most people's unwillingness to search was raised. In my opinion, anyone who's not willing to learn how to find information effectively isn't likely to learn how to execute large format photography effectively.

My other passion is acoustic jazz of the type where a musically literate listener can always hear the original melody and chord changes during all periods of improvisation. I dare say there are even fewer young people engaged in that genre today than there are practicing large format photography. Nonetheless, it hasn't died out, and the small group of millennials who discover and fall in love with it are outstanding performers. In my opinion, if this Web site, as well other resources concerning large format photography (think books) are too much trouble for the millennial masses to mine, so be it. The few with sufficient interest and drive will find what they need.

We are not in a court of law, Sal. This is a discussion forum. I don't take these posts or their opinions as a challenge or an assault on manhood... and nor should you. Let's discuss without worrying about who's responsibility it is to prove their point.

... and I don't think either Randy or myself missed the point. But I apologize for both of us (hope that's okay with you, Randy) if you took offense.

Your conclusion, however, is so correct... not for just this discipline/forum but for all of life: "The few with sufficient interest and drive will find what they need."

[StoneNYC]

p.s. My wife and I are both avid mobile phone users. And there are times, like yesterday, when I tell her that using the desktop computer will be a lot easier. But I seem to have to say that over and over again before it is heard. At one time our generation gap was focused only on movies and television shows, but now it is on computing devices too. Next time I'll avoid the child-bride and marry for money.

You could just have a 21 year old girlfriend and a 39 year old girlfriend as well like me, this satisfies both ends, though I may need to find a third 33 year old girlfriend to match my movie/music experiences

Everything in Jazz has already been done before

I've had legitimate search issues using Google now that they have implemented their mobile requirements for mobile devices and there's also the Google advertising ranks that move up and down depending on who's bidding, that doesn't really affect this forum, or shouldn't, unless a LF camera maker starts bidding on ad spots, but that's unlikely.

I haven't tried testing the "selected site only search" on my mobile, I would guess that if a site weren't mobile friendly that the choice to select the exact site would nullify that mobile only rule.

But again, most people aren't researchers and as stated by others don't even know what to search for when they are very new.

Can't really change an obvious Newb pattern, it's much easier to "cater" to their actions in a way that prevents more of the same old "which developer?" thread, than to try and change them when they don't know any better.

I.E.a main forum right at the top of the site with a title "New to Large Format? CLICK HERE!" And under that a list of the most basic questions and threads about them. That will solve more than trying to change people.

My opinion only of course.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I haven't tried testing the "selected site only search" on my mobile, I would guess that if a site weren't mobile friendly that the choice to select the exact site would nullify that mobile only rule...

Please do try it and let us know the outcome.

...Can't really change an obvious Newb pattern, it's much easier to "cater" to their actions in a way that prevents more of the same old "which developer?" thread, than to try and change them when they don't know any better.

I.E.a main forum right at the top of the site with a title "New to Large Format? CLICK HERE!" And under that a list of the most basic questions and threads about them...

How about that page also explaining the way to do a site-specific Google search as well as the benefits of such an approach?

[goamules]

It seems like fixing the searching of this site will be an invisible improvement. Those newbies that don't search well, usually write their redundant question, and either get an answer, or get explained how to search. You just got engagement, and know a person is getting into LF.

Other newbies find their answer without needing to get assistance move on, never to be heard from again. They join because they have to, or think they do, and you never hear from them again.

Those old timers that understand the limits of this website have figured out how to do their own searches. They are already LF photographers, they don't have many questions, and if they do, they're novel, new ones, that we need to see.

If the idea is that a better search will allow users to get their questions answered faster, thereby sustaining and increasing large format photography (our goal) - you'll never know if they don't then use their membership to participate. So giving a "how to search" instruction, or a better search button, will allow this to be a better "data repository", but we'll never know the results. Postings will decrease as no one ever again asks a redundant question. Which again points to the best purpose of this site, which is to build and maintain a community of LF photographers.

The idea that you can use the metric of "frequently returns" to mean "active member" and therefore the site is "sustaining LF photography" is skewed. If you don't know why someone visits the site every month, for 18 seconds say, you don't know much. If they are getting their LF questions answered and going elsewhere to discuss their photography, I guess we are somehow "sustaining" LF, but in a very weak, disengaged way. At the lowest level, we could only have the FAQ or Wiki database, with no ability for a user to leave any text or graphic comment. We could just have a click counter that reveals how many unknown people visited. Come to think of it, why do you even need membership, if it's just a database, and no forum?

To me, this forum (aka "online community") is a great success story, as it is.

[Jac@stafford.net]

First, my thanks to Garrett for his most cogent post. I will add just two-bits.

People who post questions that could be answered with a search are not just looking for answers. LF photography is an exceptionally lonely aspiration for some people, so their questions might be an attempt to engage the community that answers, to find cohorts. As suggested by many, that is a Good Thing if we understand their motive.
.

[Darin Boville]

First, my thanks to Garrett for his most cogent post. I will add just two-bits.

People who post questions that could be answered with a search are not just looking for answers. LF photography is an exceptionally lonely aspiration for some people, so their questions might be an attempt to engage the community that answers, to find cohorts. As suggested by many, that is a Good Thing if we understand their motive.
.

Exactly. Consider newbie questions an opportunity to further the long term goals of the LF community, to bring in (slowly) new blood and young people. If you go around saying "do a search" or even provide a nice page instructing them how to do nice searches they will never come back.

--Darin

[soeren]

Hmm I wonder how much information in old threads, articles and websites is redderen obsolete due to discontinuation, change in formula or other? And how many pages do you have to browser through and what if you have additional question or need something to be elaborated? Add to that the bad info out there

[tgtaylor]

The forum's search tool is...extremely poor. For example I typed in "uranium toner" and is pulled-up 772 results only one of which was uranium + toner together and that one was the recent thread that I started with Uranium Toner in the title. The rest apparently had toner somewhere in the threads but you would have to open all 772 up to see. Conversely a search for the key words Uranium Toner on apug turned-up 19 threads and highlighted those in-which uranium and toner appeared in so one could immediately go to the relevant ones.

Need some database programming here!

Thomas

[mdarnton]

When I search any forum, I always use Google, directly. It does a better job than most forum searches, and has the advantage of bringing in things from other sites, if you wish.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The forum's search tool is...extremely poor. For example I typed in "uranium toner" and is pulled-up 772 results only one of which was uranium + toner together [...]

Yes, our expectations for searching have grown with the success of Google's methods. For example, in the early days we would elevate the value of a string search when the words were found 'near' each other rather than 'anywhere', however it was up to the user to specify 'near'. Silly. Google also does some very good synonym matching, and all of this is statistically driven.

Some might wonder how Google queries are anticipated as they are typed, well it is probable that almost all the (relatively significant) queries have already been made and likely matches are based upon previous successes.