why no BMW ON section on forum?

[HODAG]

Can we add a section just for the ON. (just think the entire ME debate could have resided in one out of the way sections instead of everyone section.....)

But really.....
Just a dedicated forum section for the magazine. We have one for the website. Just thinking here.

why not??

[Stuff2c]

Makes sense to me.

[GREGFEELER]

Can we add a section just for the ON. (just think the entire ME debate could have resided in one out of the way sections instead of everyone section.....)

But really.....
Just a dedicated forum section for the magazine. We have one for the website. Just thinking here.

why not??

What do you have in mind? I ask because the forum is for discussion while a magazine presents stories and information. The plan is to put more and more connected material from the ON onto the web site. Like additional material from articles too long to print completely, old articles, tech articles, etc. Vince is working on that with Scott. How would you see an "ON" section of the Forum working?

[HODAG]

What do you have in mind? I ask because the forum is for discussion while a magazine presents stories and information. The plan is to put more and more connected material from the ON onto the web site. Like additional material from articles too long to print completely, old articles, tech articles, etc. Vince is working on that with Scott. How would you see an "ON" section of the Forum working?

It would be specific questions / discussion specific to content in ON. I understand furthering the website with expanded ON content.

1. the biggest would be more two way discussion about specific articles or content.
example:
"hey where is that route those guys took?"
"I took that route but took a left on hwy 110 good steak joint there"

2. discuss suggestions about the ON

[belquar]

It would be specific questions / discussion specific to content in ON. I understand furthering the website with expanded ON content.

1. the biggest would be more two way discussion about specific articles or content.
example:
"hey where is that route those guys took?"
"I took that route but took a left on hwy 110 good steak joint there"

2. discuss suggestions about the ON

Good steak joint????

[GREGFEELER]

It would be specific questions / discussion specific to content in ON. I understand furthering the website with expanded ON content.

Ok, I'm being Devil's Advocate here:

1. the biggest would be more two way discussion about specific articles or content.
example:
"hey where is that route those guys took?"
"I took that route but took a left on hwy 110 good steak joint there"

All the ON stories are member contributed so to have that kind of discussion you would need the author to participate in the thread. Some might want to and some not. The ON staff wouldn't be much help with those. Nothing to stop that now, with just another thread under Campfire.

2. discuss suggestions about the ON

Could be some merit to that - but then again, it seems "suggestion" threads too often turn into bitch-fests. Imagine this: instead of making a positive suggestion, someone goes off about how thereÔÇÖs too many oilhead (or airhead/kbike/world touring/etc) stories. They donÔÇÖt ride that bike or do those things so why should they have to be exposed to that stuff! IÔÇÖm not making this up ÔÇô that kind of feedback has come into the ON office from time to time.

Then what happens is the Media Editor or whoever speaks for the ON is on the defensive and spending a lot of time they likely donÔÇÖt have explaining things again and again. I think weÔÇÖve all seen this happen here many times before, unfortunately.

If youÔÇÖre still with me, then two questions:
1. Would it be wrong to have some pretty tight moderation on an ÔÇ£ONÔÇØ forum to keep it focused on the positive?
2. Would it work for the representative from the ON post to reply on a schedule, like every other day or once a week or whatever? (As opposed to babysitting the forum traffic ÔÇ£interactivelyÔÇØ.)

[HODAG]

All the ON stories are member contributed so to have that kind of discussion you would need the author to participate in the thread. Some might want to and some not. The ON staff wouldn't be much help with those. Nothing to stop that now, with just another thread under Campfire.

If the article is about a tour on route 66 I'm sure other members could lend their exprience, the original article would just be the catalyst to start the discussion. Or a review about a new bike, etc.

We can discuss the travels of Lewis and Clark with out them being their to participate.

Could be some merit to that - but then again, it seems "suggestion" threads too often turn into bitch-fests. Imagine this: instead of making a positive suggestion, someone goes off about how thereÔÇÖs too many oilhead (or airhead/kbike/world touring/etc) stories. They donÔÇÖt ride that bike or do those things so why should they have to be exposed to that stuff! IÔÇÖm not making this up ÔÇô that kind of feedback has come into the ON office from time to time. ÔÇØ

true but at least the bitching about the ON would be centralized rather than infecting every other forum section. It happens now and that wouldn't change.

Then what happens is the Media Editor or whoever speaks for the ON is on the defensive and spending a lot of time they likely donÔÇÖt have explaining things again and again. I think weÔÇÖve all seen this happen here many times before, unfortunately.

If youÔÇÖre still with me, then two questions:
1. Would it be wrong to have some pretty tight moderation on an ÔÇ£ONÔÇØ forum to keep it focused on the positive?
2. Would it work for the representative from the ON post to reply on a schedule, like every other day or once a week or whatever? (As opposed to babysitting the forum traffic ÔÇ£interactivelyÔÇØ.)

I kinda worry about that part, but....
1. Address the negative but keep it positive. Depends on the topic??
2. I don't know, that would be up to Ray how he wants to allocate resources (my cop out).

I now see that this new section could be a Bitch at Vince about everything in the mag., however it wasn't my intent. the idea sprang from a PM i received from a contributor about a comment I made about his article, and would we want to see more on that topic.


mark

[mika]

What about an alternative to the forum.

The main page has a listing of the articles in ON. Could a discussion area be added to the end of the listing for an article that allows discussion between readers about the specific article and the possibility for the author to add if they desire?

Secondly why not add a letter to the Media Editor Section to the members only area of the forum. What I have in mind is a way to message Vince, the electronic variation of sending him snail mail. At his discretion he would post the message and his response. Not all that different to what goes on now in the paper world, but without the month or more wait for a possible response.

[USERNAME]

maybe we open a new section of the forums. we call it moa/dev/null. all the complaining about media editors, late arriving magazines, and gas powered blenders and cursing trollops can go there.

[MARKAHARMS]

What about someone seeking specific information not in the article. Like last month's article about volunteering your bike to escort photogrhers for marathons and bicycle races. It sounded interesting to me but it had no information on how to volunteer. Where could I find that information??

[kbasa]

Interesting discussion going on here guys.

[GREGFEELER]

To be honest.....
as the MOA forum we need a dedicated area of the forum to discuss the magazine referred to as the ON.

"Forum guys" head out of asses time,
I really wish I knew who you all are. Because this would be sent as a PM.

the magazine needs its own area of discussion, I believe it now more than ever. Not for Vince but for US The dues paying members........

Its not about the mag. vs. web anymore

"web" guys time for you now.......

I got questions from the mag, where I put them????????
campfire

Mark
member $$$$$$

Mark,
See my post on this a couple of weeks ago - you seemed to concede some of my "devil's advocate" points then. But, to recap:

If you are asking about "space" here on the forum, there is nothing stopping anyone from starting a thread about something in the ON right now. However, judging by the lack of posts, there doesn't appear to be a ground swell of forum user interest in this - other than *this* discussion about how we need a dedicated forum for something no one is posting about. To be clear, we're not opposed to considering new forums, but so far we've handled virtually every topic imaginable within the structure we've got now.

OTOH, if you are asking Vince and the magazine contributors to take on the additional task of starting discussions or fielding discussion questions about ON articles - then you're knocking on the wrong door. That would be something for the Media Department to consider.

Bottom line - take a shot at starting threads on ON material and let's see where it goes. Fair enough?

[mika]

Greg, donÔÇÖt be too quick to assume there is not an interest in developing such a section. I think the idea has merit and needs to be fleshed out a bit. I believe the lack of posts has more to do with apprehensions about starting another media editor type debate rather than a lack of openness and interest in such a section.

You are correct that the forum has handled most topics in its current form. However; has it handled it in the best way? Have topics or questions been lost in the shuffle. I read most posts as many do. There was a time when I only scanned the oilhead section and missed things of interest raised in other sections.

To KentÔÇÖs point of such a section being merely a forum on the forum; while a potential outcome I believe it misses the true value: a focused place to have discussions about questions in the forum in a timely basis. The example of Lewis and Clark was brought up. I used an article in ON in planning my 2003 trip that followed the trail. Snail mail turnaround times did not allow time for me to ask follow up questions before I had to finalize plans. A developed section such as is being proposed may have facilitated my questions in a useful way.

I support Mark11LT, not just because of Miss Lillie and the revolution, but because the idea has merit. As we bring more people along and they learn to combine the forum and ON as part of their MOA experience such a section could be very helpful and important. A section in the forum list would go a long way of joining the two media forms.

[GREGFEELER]

Greg, donÔÇÖt be too quick to assume there is not an interest in developing such a section. I think the idea has merit and needs to be fleshed out a bit.

It might help to define what we're talking about, since I'm a wee bit confused. Are you (colectively) a) just asking for a dedicated forum for general member discusson of ON topic, b) for an "interactive" forum where the the authors of articles in the ON would be expected to be available to answer questions, or c) have I've got it all screwed up?

[mika]

YES













































More seriously, we are not a monolith so I can not make a collective response.

RE A: Yes there are times when we would want to discuss things specifically about what is written in ON. The value of the specific section for me is that it would frame the discussion.

RE B: Sort of. I would think that people that would write an article would want some feedback. I am flattered when a thread I started draws responses or resurfaces. I personally do not expect authors to be expected to respond to every comment or question. I do not respond to every comment made about my postings. I would expect something along the lines of the author of an article or significant person for a recuring column in ON would be e-mail alerted about posts regarding their article.

RE C: Unless you ride on water you are probably as prone to screwing up as I am.