Dak,

Thank you for sharing your recommendation about merging the General Discussion sub-forum into the main forum of each chassis. This specific topic was discussed among some moderators prior to this Poll thread.

Have you the opportunity to download and look through my proposed changes PDF? That link can be found in Post #1. I believe there is a need for a general forum and one for technical content. In theory, this would allow people to find/use/create how-to's and address specific mechanical and electrical concerns with a specific chassis. It even proposes the use of thread tags that break down each sub-system of the RX-7 to aid in searches or to help technical experts quickly sort through topics to address.

Furthermore, the proposal would change the title of each Generation sub-forum to read:
1. FD/FC/FB/Old School Rotary Technical (main technical content for users to ask specific electrical/mechanical questions)
1.a. General Discussion (Topics general in nature that are not addressed in a specific technical area)

If all content was posted into the main area of each chassis then there would be a greater propensity for a given thread to become lost in a sea of other threads. Furthermore, would you want to have a picture mega-thread in the same area as Taurus Alternator related-threads?

In all fairness, you propose the following:
- Merge content from each General Discussion sub-forum into its respective Generational main forum. Then remove the General Discussion forum from each Generation forum. This would reduce redundant sub-forums because similar content is currently duplicated between the main and general discussion areas.

Did I understand your recommendation? Is there anything you wish to add, clarify, or take away?

For members who already voted or who plan to vote on "Remove post restrictions except for the marketplace..." would you kindly express what post count a new user should have prior to accessing the marketplace? The current restriction is 10 posts.

Thank you in advance!

Here's another thought. Perhaps add a warning message or a "I'm not a robot" verification for people attempting to bump threads that haven't been updated in over a decade? I've seen a few really old ones pushed up in the 1st gen section lately.

chuyler1,

Could you be a little more specific? Are you referring to a captcha form of verification after a member logs into the forum? How would that either streamline or benefit the forum?

Keeps content relevant. I have no issue with old threads getting bumped when the need arises, but sometimes a quick reminder to the user that they are about to ask a question on a thread that has been dormant for a decade is useful.

kutukutu1,

Currently, Proposals 1, 2, and 3 have not been nominated as "seconds". Do you wish to second them? I ask that you follow our parliamentary procedures previously discussed. As a reminder, after a proposal receives a "second" nomination could we open the floor for votes.

I'd be happy to record your support for Proposals 1, 2, and 3, or others afterwards.

Yes you did understand my recommendation. You do raise a valid counter point. I guess a mega picture thread would be in the current non-technical and pictures section which looks like it is going away in the proposed layout. My problem is with redundancies between the two sections. For example we have Taurus alternator threads in both sections currently. I do like the proposed use of thread tags. I guess if we could somehow do better at differentiating between the two and/or policing them so they remain true to their intended subjects. Maybe a description that more clearly defines what should be in the General discussion sub-forum is a start. Otherwise I stand behind my suggestion of removing the General Discussion forum of each Generation forum.

chuyler1,

Thanks again for the amplifying remarks. I am concerned that implementing a control as you suggest would create additional restrictions that may push members away. Could we employ other methods that we currently have? What about identifying old threads, closing them, then archiving them? This way content is not lost - members may still reference a closed thread for pertinent information. What are your thoughts?

If you are concerned that a new member is an actual human and not a bot then that is a separate issue that could be addressed. Did I misunderstand your recommendations?

I'd like to second Proposal number 3 if it hasn't been already and I overlooked it.
I'd also like to add my votes to the following.

+1 for #4
+1 for #5
Thanks.

Dak,

Thank you for the continued dialog. And again, thanks for your support on the use of thread tags. If that is truly the case then may I add you as an "official" supporter for it?

Are you more concerned about the lack of definition between technical and non-technical content areas (sub-forums)?

I agree that the line between the technical sub-forum and general discussion forum can be easily blurred. Sometimes, a thread may initially start in a general discussion sub-forum but then its content turns into a technical session (and vice versa).

Instead of proposing the deletion of the General Discussion sub-forum would you be open to proposing that the Club better define guidelines for posting technical content and general content in their respective sub-forums? This could also spell out the roles of members and moderators. The result would create a standard for members and moderators to follow and reduce the guess work of where to post and/or where to move a thread (via moderator).

Would that address your chief complaint of thread duplication between technical and non-technical sub-forums? What do you prefer?

Thank you for the votes, Dak!

I acknowledge your votes for Proposal 4 of +1 and Proposal 5 of +1. Moreover, thank your for the "second" nomination for Proposal 3! Please let me know if you wish to vote for Proposal 3.

*Break, Break*

All members: All in favor of Proposal 3 please vote +1 for yea and -1 for nay.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 3:
Proposal 4: +4
Proposal 5: +3
Proposal 6:

kutukutu1,

Thank you for the feedback on post count restrictions and support for the Club. May I ask how would a member with a post count of 1 gain your trust? What if that member's introduction was, "hey...zup? This is my 1 post so I can get my parts then leave." I would argue that such a post would be too long of an intro.

Picture this: A new member, joined 1hr ago, made an intro post of, "1st post so I can hit up the marketplace" He then heads to your ad for a $500 turbo then posts to it: "yo man i gotta get that turbo shipped for $400." What would you do?

Would a 1 post minimum really deter anyone from using or abusing the forum for its resources then bail?

Again, my thanks for providing the additional feedback on post restrictions!

Archiving/locking threads where the last post was 5-10+ years ago would be a perfect solution.

proposal 2 +1
proposal 4 +1

Yes. Sorry. I second proposal 1,2,3.

kutukutu1,

Thank your for the second nominations for Proposals 1, 2, and 3! Would you care to vote on any of the 6 proposals now?

All in favor of Proposals 1 through 6: Please vote +1 for yea and -1 for nay.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2:
Proposal 3:
Proposal 4: +4
Proposal 5: +3
Proposal 6:

Templeton,

Thank you for voting on both proposals. I recognize your vote of +1 for Proposal 2 and vote +1 for Proposal 4.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3:
Proposal 4: +5
Proposal 5: +3
Proposal 6:

To summarize, all 6 proposals listed below are open for member voting.

1. Create a sub-forum titled "Turbocharge a NA motor" in the "Tech and Performance" section. This would be useful to FB/SA22, FC, and Old School Rotary members who wish to add turbos to a naturally aspirated rotary. Originator: WondrousBread

2. Add a "First Unread Message" button/link in the header, similar to the "Go to Last Post" button. This would enable members to quickly view the first unread post of a thread without the need to open the thread first. Maybe the button could have an icon that shows "1st" and an envelope? The button design may not be important; it's illustrating an option that would be different than the ">" button. Originator: Toruki

3. Add a PDF Export function and/or improve the "Show Printable Version" capability of a thread to include photos, instead of displaying a link to them. It gives members the ability and options to print a thread (or relevant segments of it) and/or export it as a PDF for reference. This ability does have merit, especially in how-to or build threads. Originator: Toruki

4. Overhaul the method of image insertion to the composition window (text editor). Add the ability to "drag and drop" and/or "copy and paste" photos into the composition window. For example, the gmail composition window functions in this manner. This would reduce the amount of time and steps it takes to import a photo into a post. Originator: Toruki

5. Create an image repository by generation for entire vehicles and its various sub-assemblies. This would enable the forum to become an authority and a place where members (or outsiders) could trust the imagery and associated data. In addition, images would be readily available and members could see the original thread(s) where it was used. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

6. Improve the composition window by replacing the current method with Bootstrap. This would condense coding on multiple platforms (phone, tablet, desktop, etc...) into one streamlined module. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

Thank you again for all the comments and suggestions. Shall we keep them coming? Don't forget to show support or opposition to these 6 proposals.

chuyler1,

Great! Let's work on a draft so it may be added to the list of proposals. How does this sound?

- Establish a small working group tasked with identifying old threads, closing them, then archiving them when the last post was 7+ years old (basically, anything older than 2012). This small work group could be chaired by a moderator and comprised of 4 Club members (max) to identify and review these old threads in their respective sub-forums (1st Gen, 2nd Gen, etc...). This would allow members to reference a closed thread for pertinent information and avoid thread bumps for the purpose of rapidly inflating a junior member's post count.

Sure you may add me as a supporter of thread tags.
It is the lack of definition between the technical and non-technical content areas( sub-forums) that caused me to propose the deletion of the General Discussion sub forum. On the other hand It wasn't even added(referring to the way back machine) until Jan. 2016 and IIRC we were ok without them. To be honest I'm torn between the two options of "proposing that the Club better define guidelines for posting technical content and general content in their respective sub-forums? This could also spell out the roles of members and moderators." or proposing they be deleted. If better defining them works I'd be happy but if not I'll be like man I should pushed for deletion. Can we put it to a vote and see which direction others would like to go?

Also add my +1 vote to Proposal #3.

Dak,

It was good to read your response.

You are added as a supporter for thread tags. Additionally, I acknowledge your vote of +1 for Proposal 3.

For now, let's address your suggestion in its original form:
- Remove the General Discussion sub-forum from each Generation specific forums (1st Gen, 2nd Gen, etc...), and merge those threads into the main Generation specific section. This would reduce redundant posts - members ask the same questions in the General Discussion section as in the main Generation specific section. Such as, "why won't my car star?" "Which exhaust should I buy?" Or "where does this wire go?"... This removal would reduce the number of sub-forums a member would search (from 2 to 1 forums) and the likelihood of missing a thread would be significantly reduced.

What do you think?

This is an updated vote count on Proposals 1 through 6.

Proposal Vote Count:
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2: +1
Proposal 3: +1
Proposal 4: +5
Proposal 5: +3
Proposal 6:

To summarize, all 6 proposals listed below are open for member voting.

1. Create a sub-forum titled "Turbocharge a NA motor" in the "Tech and Performance" section. This would be useful to FB/SA22, FC, and Old School Rotary members who wish to add turbos to a naturally aspirated rotary. Originator: WondrousBread

2. Add a "First Unread Message" button/link in the header, similar to the "Go to Last Post" button. This would enable members to quickly view the first unread post of a thread without the need to open the thread first. Maybe the button could have an icon that shows "1st" and an envelope? The button design may not be important; it's illustrating an option that would be different than the ">" button. Originator: Toruki

3. Add a PDF Export function and/or improve the "Show Printable Version" capability of a thread to include photos, instead of displaying a link to them. It gives members the ability and options to print a thread (or relevant segments of it) and/or export it as a PDF for reference. This ability does have merit, especially in how-to or build threads. Originator: Toruki

4. Overhaul the method of image insertion to the composition window (text editor). Add the ability to "drag and drop" and/or "copy and paste" photos into the composition window. For example, the gmail composition window functions in this manner. This would reduce the amount of time and steps it takes to import a photo into a post. Originator: Toruki

5. Create an image repository by generation for entire vehicles and its various sub-assemblies. This would enable the forum to become an authority and a place where members (or outsiders) could trust the imagery and associated data. In addition, images would be readily available and members could see the original thread(s) where it was used. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

6. Improve the composition window by replacing the current method with Bootstrap. This would condense coding on multiple platforms (phone, tablet, desktop, etc...) into one streamlined module. Originator would be available as an advisor. Originator: KansasCity REPU

Thank you again for all the comments and suggestions. Shall we keep them coming? Don't forget to show support or opposition to these 6 proposals.

Sounds good.

One editor I've used for #4 (text editor) is the tinyMCE.