ST for GST programming will be in open, public forum

[Kit_L]

We have decided that all programming discussions will be in this public Stretch Therapy forum; this way even people who don't have the Stretch Therapy for Gymnastics Strength Training programs will be able to learn and contribute.

When this is ready, all discussions regarding frequency, intensity, how to combine with existing training protocols and anything else that can help people achieve their goals will be in the one thread (or sub-forum; we'll make that decision later).

We start shooting Day Two today.

[Tris]

Sounds fantastic.

I think a sub-forum for ST4GST, a sub-sub forum for each program, and a thread for each pose in the program along with a general program thread would work well. (Visual example at bottom of this post.)

(Disclaimer: I am thorough and love details.)

I think the key is a good balance: too much infrastructure and topics are spread thin, too little infrastructure and you get 10,000 topics for one movement generally asking the same 5-10 questions. The infrastructure is like buying slightly-too-big clothes for your son: he will quickly grow into them. In the same way, as discussion grows (and it will, as these vids get out!), I think this will suit well.

Anyway, enjoy Day Two! Hope the shooting is going well.

Visual example:

FORUM: Stretch Therapist/Stretch Practitioner

----SUB: Topics relating to Stretch Therapy

------------(General ST topics)

----SUB: Topics relating to ST For GST Programs

--------SUB-SUB: Topics relating to Master the Pancake

------------Topic: General (to discuss program frequency, intensity, combining with other training etc.)

------------Topic: Pose 1 Cossack

------------Topic: Pose 2 Skandasana

------------Topic: Pose 3 Tailor

------------etc.

--------SUB-SUB: Topics relating to Master Shoulder Mobility

------------Topic: General (to discuss program frequency, intensity, combining with other training etc.)

------------Topic: Pose 1

------------Topic: Pose 2

------------Topic: Pose 3

------------etc.

--------SUB-SUB: etc. other programs

[Keilani Gutierrez]

i second Tris' motion and love the layout.

[Frederik]

Then I shall "third" the suggestion (!)

[thecolin]

I think the key is a good balance: too much infrastructure and topics are spread thin, too little infrastructure and you get 10,000 topics for one movement generally asking the same 5-10 questions. The infrastructure is like buying slightly-too-big clothes for your son: he will quickly grow into them. In the same way, as discussion grows (and it will, as these vids get out!), I think this will suit well.

I like the idea, but couldn't it be gradually implemented as the forum grows?

[Anders]

I "fourth" Tris' suggestion. In reply to Colin, yes changes over time are possible and likely needed but I assume it is more efficient to implement a reasonable structure from the beginning. The reason is that a good balance --Tris' main point -- is a well established best practice in research data management.

[Anders]

In support of implementing a forum structure gradually -- Colin's proposal -- one could argue that the best guiding principle is something less ambitious than research data management. Examples are data management that focuses on low cost, rapid implementation, user friendly etc. rather than on "research" (replicable results). But if we want forum data that can pass Kit's "the 50 years test", I am not aware of a better guiding principle than research data management.

[Tris]

I like the idea, but couldn't it be gradually implemented as the forum grows?

I like your idea too, but as I thought about it I realized I don't think it would work for the following reasons:

• the forum is likely to grow soon and quickly (I'm imagining the activity boom when GB.com & GMB.com hears about Master the Pike and Pancake alone), the forum won't be over-developed for long at all
  
• the content posted up until the restructure will be lost
  
• the concept that most topics ask the same 10-15 questions is scalable, and applies whether 100 people see it or 5,000 people see it
  

[thecolin]

I like your idea too, but as I thought about it I realized I don't think it would work for the following reasons:

• the forum is likely to grow soon and quickly (I'm imagining the activity boom when GB.com & GMB.com hears about Master the Pike and Pancake alone), the forum won't be over-developed for long at all
  

Perhaps you're correct. I'm just wondering how much the GB information blackout will affect the initial growth.

I like the idea, my initial concern was that having too many sub forums might be a barrier to finding information when the number of posts is limited. But this is pure speculation on my part. I don't have much experience in this sort of thing so I'm not the best person to ask regardless.

[Tris]

I'm just wondering how much the GB information blackout will affect the initial growth.

Hmm that's a really good point.

[Anders]

... having too many sub forums might be a barrier to finding information when the number of posts is limited....

From the perspective of research data management, the problems with few posts are much smaller than with many posts. With many subforums and many posts, the problem is not only inefficiency of repeated questions like Tris mentioned originally but also mispostings. The main advantage with fewer forums, just one forum in the extreme case, is ease of management; it's mostly if not merely a matter of getting rid of spam and clearly inappropriate postings.

We have at least two more intermediate options than discussed so far. For completeness, here are the four main choices in my view. The order is from elaborate structure to little structure:

1. Tris suggestion: "Sub" -> "Sub-Sub" -> "Topic"

2. Keep "Sub-Sub" but omit "Topic". The structure would be similar to GB except that Kit allows some discussion of competing products if relevant.

3. Keep but reduce "Sub-Sub". To illustrate, a popular statistics software list known as the Statalist recently changed from an email list to a forum list and decided to use two (2) forums only as a reasonable middle ground for discussing the commercial Stata: "General" and "Mata" (Stata's matrix programming language). The Statalist forum is at http://www.statalist.org/forums/ .

4. Colin's suggestion: Initially omit "Sub-Sub", implement structure as forum grows.

[Tris]

With many subforums and many posts, the problem is not only inefficiency of repeated questions like Tris mentioned originally but also mispostings.

The main advantage with fewer forums, just one forum in the extreme case, is ease of management; it's mostly if not merely a matter of getting rid of spam and clearly inappropriate postings.

To understand: why is less subforums easier to manage?

Just to clarify my point... I think fewer subforums leads to more topics asking the same questions (repeat questions). The reason being: less subforums means more topics to cover the questions of that area, and more topics means more people not seeing that their question is already answered/discussed in another topic.

The GB.com forum is a good example of how this can become a nightmare. Let's say someone asks a question about l-sit in "basic strength" and older-timer veteran answers with a short tone because they "didn't use the Search tool". The new guy, understandably, did not see his question answered on page 2, 5, 8 & 13 of topics, because there are a flood of topics due to subforum needing to cover discussion about 50-60 other movements. This is bad for everyone: the person asking the question gets a dud answer, the veterans get sick of the same questions, and everyone else never reads the full picture of the question because the good answers are split over all the repeat topics.

Personally I'm a bit torn between 1 & 2. Option two allows more open discussion, where people can ask questions in different ways/contexts. But for option one, I do love the idea that all discussion for a pose is arranged in one topic - and you can just read the topic rather than having to goldmine lots of topics to find your area of interest.

[thecolin]

Personally I'm a bit torn between 1 & 2. Option two allows more open discussion, where people can ask questions in different ways/contexts. But for option one, I do love the idea that all discussion for a pose is arranged in one topic - and you can just read the topic rather than having to goldmine lots of topics to find your area of interest.

I don't know much about forum code. Does the possibility of a magical combination of both options exist? Where each post is filed under a specific sub forum, but with an optional link to view all topics grouped together? Or to see one or more sub categories grouped together? Sort of like you were able to apply and remove filters to the posts?

Or alternatively some way to force a poster to identify the subject, like the tagging system on GB, but that requires the user to select from several predetermined tags? It doesn't work on GB because it's not mandatory, and it lacks a common language and system. But perhaps there's a way to make it actually work.

[MT Nordic]

I definitely think a more organized approach would be best. I agree with the above commenters that GB forum is very messy. Unfortunately I don't have much computer expertise. I don't even know how to upload a video to demonstrate something! However, it seems to me that the more restrictive and specialized the sub-sub etc area is the better. For instance, it would be nice if GB had this structure where every post on manna was in a manna sub topic, every post on manna pe6 was in a sub sub topic. You could of course filter by recent activity or view the most recent in any topic if you wanted, but if i wanted to see the posts on manna pe6 i could look, it wouldn't be overly long, and if i didn't see it there i could start my own topic. as to what is a topic, sub topic, sub sub topic, or even sub sub sub topic (!) i do not know. this is my 2 cents

[Anders]

To understand: why is less subforums easier to manage? ...

The infrequent forum user might easily get confused about which forum to post in; the frequent forum user would need to monitor several forums. That said, I prefer a more organized structure myself, especially if there is an easy way to find "new unread messages" or the like.

Edit: There is a "View New Content" feature in the upper right corner. One advantage with less subforums remains: less miss-postings.

[Craig]

I tend to think that simpler is better. I miss a lot of information on other forums simply because there are too many sub forums to bother visiting.

My personal preference is to have some variety of layout like so, with the pinned topics preventing the re asking of questions. Its important that only the program elements are pinned, and will also allow discussion below the pinned elements should someone else find something in particular worth noting or think is related:

Strength and Movement (what the monkey gym topic is now)

- General Discussion (sub forum)

- Workout Logs (sub forum)

Flexibility

- General Discussion (sub forum)

- Mastering the Pancake (sub forum)

- within each forum have a bunch of pinned topics that cover discussion for each element

- Mastering the Pike (sub forum)

- within each forum have a bunch of pinned topics that cover discussion for each element

- Mastering the Squat and Basic Hip Mobility (sub forum)

- within each forum have a bunch of pinned topics that cover discussion for each element

- Whatever other programs are built (sub forum)

- within each forum have a bunch of pinned topics that cover discussion for each element

Meditation & Relaxation

- General Discussion (sub forum)

- Guides and Recordings (sub forum)

Off Topic

- Nutrition (sub forum)

- Books (sub forum)

- Everything else (movies, places to visit, current events, whatever) (sub forum)

[MT Nordic]

Craig, that looks like what i was (not so fluently) trying to describe. I like it!

[CraigR]

Agreed, I like it Craig!

I'd also entertain the thought of Strength and Movement being split into two forums if a single forum ends up containing too many distinct topics.

[Kit_L]

Craig, that looks fantastic.

Repost of a question (that I am likely to repost ​many times until I get what I need!):

Who here is, or knows, someone who can workout the Byzantine mysteries of how IP.Board admin works? A true IT guru and I sat for three hours trying to work out how to take our Forum shop live. I will be delighted to pay someone who can do this work on an occasional basis. Please PM me here.

@theColin: the search function does work well in this software; that's what I always use first. Posters, make sure the subject line contains the essential info.

@MTNordic: we do not host videos here but you can make a video and upload to either Vimeo or YouTube (both free and easy to set up) and if you do not want the world to see it (but people here to be able to) then mark it Unlisted in the "Privacy" settings, and simply copy the URL here. No formatting needed, and it will appear as it does on YT. Easy.

As well, and I have read everyone's suggestions, and address

@Anders, who wrote:

well established best practice in research data management

I would love to hear more on that, please. And I think here is the best place, because it's clear that there are a LOT of tech-savvy people here. I want this to be a real community, without be onerous to anyone, and I am happy to make any member a moderator, if you have skills/experience in this area.

[Adurst]

I'm not going to go into detail now - having a beer at the pub

But discussion forums have specific strengths and weaknesses. They are by definition conversational and tangential (often diverted) and very often informal.

There are many different contemporary digital tools...discussion forums are but one.

Horses for courses!

Discussion forms are horrible for storing information for the purposes of systematic learning and leveraging information for the creation of new knowledge...they can provide an important role in those processes...but is not a solution in of itself.

[Anders]

Re well established best practice in research data management: the guiding principle is being able to create replicable results. I find two ideas (first expressed by the sociologist and statistician Scott Long) to be central for an effective workflow of data analysis:

1. Once a file is posted it should never be changed.

2. Data analysis should be divided between data management and statistical analysis.

As Adurst mentioned, forum data are messy. For example, I think that minor editing of your own recent posts and preventing spamming are or can be "good" whereas distorting data on purpose and censoring are "bad" actions.

Re Craig's proposal, it seems to be a variation of what I called "3. Keep but reduce "Sub-Sub" in that he proposes less forums (4) than there will be "Mastering programs" (6?). However, I am concerned about about ease of use and management. For example, there is already a forum about Relaxation (the 5Rs). I assumed that ST for GST will be a self-contained new sub forum under the forum "Stretch Therapist/Stretch Practitioner", as Tris outlined. Kit, is that correct or are you open also to re-organizing the forums, not merely the subforums?

I suggest that Tris' proposal has two advantages:

1. The existing forum structure can be kept.; "ST for GST" is a subforum of the forum "Stretch Therapist/Stretch Practitioner".

2. The subforum "ST for GST" can easily be structured like the new & forthcoming programs (YouTube videos).

[Adurst]

My 2cents is that a forum is not the way to do it.

Forums are not good tools for data/knowledge management.

Knowledge will inevitably drift back into the ether and loose visibility.

And pinning everything doesn't work either.

I think already you can see on the ST forums that lots of wisdom...from many people...is now buried in the middle of a thread, on a post with a title of a different topic.

However....it would mean changing the direction of the community.

I think this works now...but will increasingly break down as the community grows.

[Anders]

Well, I think the best structure of the forum depends on the structure of the "Master" products that the forums are meant to discuss. The more prominent and structured products, the more the forums should be structured in order to mirror those products. In my previous example of the statistics software Stata, there are a couple of strong reasons for keeping the forums less structured. One reason is historical, another reason is that the product itself is general purpose data management-statistics-graphics. In contrast, the forthcoming "ST for GST" video products seem very specific and well defined like the "Pike", "Pancake", etc. rather than "Stretch 1", "Stretch 2" etc (pun intended).

[Tris]

Forums are not good tools for data/knowledge management. Knowledge will inevitably drift back into the ether and loose visibility, and pinning everything doesn't work either.

I agree, they're good for short-term discussion but not great as a long-term reference.

Perhaps combining the forums and wiki gives the best of both worlds. In the short-term, questions are answered and discussion is had on the forum. In the long-term, the content is collaborated into wiki for reference and learning for years to come.

[Adurst]

here's my A$$hole...I mean opinion for the day.

short term....forums will do...one for each program...or whatever...it doesn't really matter heaps.

"an imperfect thing done is better than a perfect thing never done"

long term...

Perhaps combining the forums and wiki gives the best of both worlds. In the short-term, questions are answered and discussion is had on the forum. In the long-term, the content is collaborated into wiki for reference and learning for years to come.

I think that general direction is best....lots of ways to skin the cat....but the basic forum alone will not provide an ideal solution

there are even variants of the traditional forum...more structured for questions...Yahoo Questions is a prime example of this or forums with "best response" features....if the desire is to identify the best answer to a question and make easily accessible.

Wiki's and other collaborative authoring platforms are good for the development of content and reasonably good at delivering that as content to users.

That said...traditional Forums are great places for communities....they create dialogue and encourage dialogue to evolve/develop naturally with the community's thought processes.

blogs make for great opportunities to combine knowledge from multiple parts of a framework into an actionable process....this is what articles do.

Tagging and internal linking can start to link the various pieces together. and help people identify related disparate pieces of information.

most importantly is tools that allow the community to develop it's own ontology overtime...a folksonomy.

this is a better approach then applying tradition research data management practices which require top down authority and control over a highly developed existing ontologies to classify and group information...a practice doomed to fail in a bottom-up community driven knowledge management endeavour....a more community driven organic process will be more successfully with the inevitably ebbing and flowing, transient community that is the internet.