Time to break down the Camp Kitchen forum

[bringerofgame]

I'm for it. Most of my perusal of hf is through tapatalk, so I would have to exit the app, do a site specific search on google, locate the thread, then subscribe or comment to mark it for later viewing. Recipes are the main thing in the camp kitchen I've looked for, but also a lot has had to do with alcohol stoves as that is the next project (addiction) that has sparked my interest. If most of my viewing was on laptop, it may be less of an issue, but with my current modus operandi this would be quite beneficial.

[DanglingModifier]

It depends on your definition of "better." I don't consider more complexity to be better.

Key word was attempt. I'm not certain it would work for the better, but at least it is an attempt at progress and improvement. The status quo regarding search and post aggregation for the forum isn't great. It's not like the built in search or use of Google set the bar high in this regard. There are a lot of things done REALLY well here, but search/sort/filtering isn't one of them. I'm sure that's a limitation of the bbs software more than anything else.

We're in agreement that more complexity doesn't necessarily equate to better. The complexity better bring something valuable enough to the table that it justifies itself.

In this case, what constitutes complexity is debatable. Please show me how a Google or forum-based search for all the recipes shared by people on the forum is less complex, and less expensive in human effort, than having those threads filed in one place. Explain to me where I am making a mistake in the use case I described in my last post, and how the status quo is more simple/efficient.

Oldbiker, glad to oblige with some entertainment for you!

[oldbiker]

DanglingModifier I'm with you. My vote is for a few subforms, but it's no biggie either way. Sure like recipes.

[Hotlips]

Personally, I'd love it if we had at least a sub-forum for recipes under camp kitchen. Then metadata would allow sorting by the activity of the thread and good submissions would probably be easier to browse and find than they are now.

Recipes are something you might reference often, and they don't get dated the way some of the hardware posts do (Gear item X is the best thing around, right up until Gear item Y is invented and makes it obsolete). Every big backpacking trip you might want to review the list of recipe posts and try something new. That's a little different than posts about stoves or water filters, where you learn something from the thread the first time you interact with it and then tend to move on and not need to reference it often, or ever again.

I understand the site is hammock focused, and I appreciate that, but we already have categories that have nothing specifically to do with hammocks. Those off-topic categories are a major reason I help fund the site as a donating member. Making some of those resources easier to use by breaking them into sensible and more focused topics makes sense to me.

Edit: Gresh just beat me to a couple points.

I feed hammock hangers, Gresh and Gunner76 included . Hammock hangers love to eat. I cook with Dutch ovens at the Hammock Hangs. I am a donating member of the Hammock Forum. And my 2 cents is that hammock hanging isn't just about hammocks. Everyone who hangs, hikes, or sits around the campfire has to eat. So break it up into subforums, we can become the Disboards of the hammock world .

[Scalz]

Always on the lookout for more camping recipes. Especially ones I can dehydrate. I vote for sub categories.

[DuctTape]

To claim that those of us who do not favor this idea are against making the site better is offensive. We, at least I, do not think it is an improvement. Having teied to understand those who do desire the subs, I see two very different views of the forums. 1. Those who see the threads, forums, subs as a repository of information information like a library and desires ease of cataloging and searching. And 2. Those who view the forum as a live discussion venue where the past discussions just happen to be saved for posterity. More like a cafe.

So I see (at least) two world views of the forums, that of a library first which happens to have a cafe for discusdiscussion vs cafe first which happens to save the discussions in a library. These two opposing views are what dictate our opinions.

I do not think the subforums will enhance the cafe feel and may limit it by separating the conversations into different venues. I would rather be in a cafe talking to many, than in a cubicle reading the encyclopedia. However I understand there are some who view hf as a resource of information first and are content with not facilitating conversation. Most of us are on this continuum, which side we lean towards affects our opinion on whether any change is beneficial.

[Gresh]

"HF was started to become the single best source of hammock information on the internet."

As stated in the ToS, HF was intended to be a resource of information first.

[DuctTape]

Gresh, I assume your comment was a response to mine. A source for information takes many forms. It can be in real time through conversation with others, or it can be found in books. Thus the purpose you quote provides for both world views in my post. I would argue the very nature of the forum as a post-reply setup implies that back and forth discussion is a primary means to facilitate the sharing of hammock information in the goal else the design would be a wiki if it were to primarily be a database of information.

[Flynguy521]

I'll chime in...+1

"I'm for it. Most of my perusal of hf is through tapatalk, so I would have to exit the app, do a site specific search on google, locate the thread, then subscribe or comment to mark it for later viewing. Recipes are the main thing in the camp kitchen I've looked for, but also a lot has had to do with alcohol stoves as that is the next project (addiction) that has sparked my interest. If most of my viewing was on laptop, it may be less of an issue, but with my current modus operandi this would be quite beneficial."

I follow the same train of thought. Gresh's comment above rings true as well. Look at all the lurkers, they outnumber registered contributing members, (and by contributing I mean those who lend their "voices" to the convo). They are looking for info, most are, so the TOS goal is inline with what most want out of the forums.

However, not trying to stir the pot, but are the ones who are against this mods? They are the ones who I would assume spend most of their time on the site, and if they have reasons for being against, other than fighting change (not saying or implying anyone is) then I think their feedback has definite merit.

[oldraven]

I think it's a good idea to have sub forums.