Hi!

Your statements about "quality" of messages brought me to thinking that way. Each time I hear "quality" I'm thinking about complains ;-) Sorry for that but... You should better re-phrase your message so it would have more "creative" mood than "complaining" mood.

I read your and other's messages well. Just creating new category is not sufficient. It is required to make special rules for it, have person for very strict moderating of it or something like that etc. That is what I meant "You did not said anything but complains". Just creating category is not enough.

Now I would try to follow your message better in another light (creating new category) - see notes below, include notes to your original message far below...

>>Hi!
>>
>>I certainly agree with you that it is hard to find information through messages because a lot of chaff.
>>
>>Something in regards to that is presently under development.
>
>Hi Vlad. I didn't write that it's hard to find information through messages because of a lot of chaff. Personally I'm quite able to find a solution to a problem by searching the message area, notwithstanding the chaff here and there.
>

Well, It's hard to search anyway. When I search for sommething through 2 years, I get a list of ~500 messages, if I do not think much on the search criteria. Refining search to narrow down results takes a lot of effort and is not always possible. Review of all 500 messages to find quality answer is also time-consuming.

What I want to say is that people are NOT interested in discussions at all, and are not willing to spend time on quality discussion, except of case of free time. When somebody have a problem, he just tries to search. When could not find (or search result returns ~500 messages), post a thread and somebody else point to required article. Just look to threads 2 years ago and to threads as they're current. Currently most of the time I see _pointers_ to existing answer, FAQ, download, article, link to another site etc.

My opinion is that it is more beneficial to improve search/storage facitlity compare to creating new category for quality discussions. New category could require new threads, new discussions, new topics... But all this already exists in form of years of messaes at UT. I do not think people would be interested much in quality discussions compare to re-using of existing knowledge.

I think it is better to create something like a new area on UT where "quality" discussions that already exists are referenced, so it is easier to find a topic of interest and learn/find solution.

>
>
>>However, I do not agree with terms you use to explain your reasons.
>>
>>Think of a few points here:
>>1. You can do NOTHING to commitment or attention of people to certain topic. In forum messages/threads people are free to write anything they want in any form they want - to help only that topic, partially or completely, participate discussion. All is in form of free conversation and ideas exchange. When you see two developers talking, it is not very appropriate to jump in and ask "guys, please, make more attention to quality of answers" - they probably would not even hear you. Remember that everybody here throws knowledge and answers for free, so you cannot demand anything better than we have now.
>
>Indeed, we can do nothing about the level of commitment or attention with regard to the current categories. And I do not want to do anything about that. It's okay as it is now. It's even higher than most of us ever would have dreamed of. When I'm talking about commitment, I'm talking about the proposed new category. That category is not for answering questions. It's meant for those who like fundamental discussions.
>

Well, what you meant as "fundamental discussions"? Example of topics:
- Possibility to create universal call-back functions support ActiveX for VFP;
- Possibility to move VFP to .NET
Am I correct?

First my example have commercial aspect and I do not think somebody would throw "quality" ideas here for free.
Second my example usually tends to turn into flame-war, that is NOT a quality discussion, in my opinion.

Do you have another examples?

I do not think new category would make any difference. Commercial aspects would prevent to throw smart ideas for free, so topics would discuss usually only small details of similar level as they are now. Flame-war aspects would preven highly-complicated philosophical or technical discussions turning such topics into something similar as we have in Chatter.

>
>>2. Discussion never could be of high quality, just because it's nature: asking qiestion/answer, state different points one of which is the best or the worst etc. Only technical article that describes something could be of high quality.
>
>Same with regard to quality. When I'm talking about quality, I'm talking about the proposed new 'fundamental discussions' category.
>

I want to say that "quality" is something measurable/comparable. Even "fundamental discussion" could be very lamer. It is needed to make some effort and something else to make it have "high quality" - to make difference. Just creating new category is not enough. You require to make people _understand_ the difference - to decide what discussion is of better quality.

>
>>3. People are interested to get what they want, and this is only very slightly dependent on quality. If there is only one way to develop something, we get an idea and develop all the rest by self. No need in 'quality' here. 'quality' appears only in case there is something to compare. For example, quality of source code - one is better and another is worse. But how much of 'quality' source code you see in real forum messages? Right, there are ony examples that you require to deal with in any way. To measure 'quality', you require to have something that exists in _most_ messages, but there are no any regularity, unfortunately. If you can formulate exactly what you mean as 'quality' of forum message, we all would appreciate it, but you probably would require to write an entire article to explain that :-)))
>>
>>4. I would not like to ever link 'quality' with person's experience/mastery. Anybody, even when have little experience in VFP, probably could get to the same quality as expert, but just with a bit more time and effort. For example, 2 years ago I certainly spent much more time/source code in message than today, just because I had less experience at that time.
>
>I'm not defining quality simply in terms of expertise. Rather, I think that those who participate in a fundamental discussion should feel at ease in the discussion. They'll show respect to the other participants when they react with constructive arguments. Disrespectful experts will lower the quality, whereas newbies who give prove of a high level of logical thinking will raise the quality.
>

That is why I said "you probably would require to write an entire article to explain that" :-)

BTW, take a look to following article: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

UT site is a kind of WEB site that falls into rules described in that article. QUESTIONS, not discussions.

I understand what you meant as "quality" of message, I hanging here every working day and it is obvious for me what message/discussion is of high quality. BUT, how you would explain this to newbies or people that are high-experts, but look here once per week or two and do not understand well what is "high quality" discussion?

Because this barrier, such new category tend to be only for UT "elite" members - thous who hang here every day, are high experts and support quaility discussions. Because such members usually have plenty of work, they do not have time for "fundamentla discussions". As a result, I do not think such new category would be very popular.


>
>>Also, as William Sanders said, you did not said anything except complains. I also did not got WHAT you want to improve in UT WEB site. If you have any ideas, can you share them?
>
>Did William say that?? Did I only complain? Didn't I make a full proposal then? If that's what you really think, then I have to complain about you. For in that case you haven't really read my original message! Hope you reconsider a reread.
>

Your statements about "quality" of messages brought me to thinking that way. William's answer is also looks like an answer to "complains". I read you message very accurately.

I meant, I did not got WHAT you want to improve at UT WEB site by creating new category.

>
>>Below are a few of mine:
>>
>>UT WEB site recources already have FAQ, downloads, articles, links. Need something comparable to forum messages, but with only useful information, and some compfortable way to compile such resource.
>>
>>Got any ideas how to improve UT content and use HUGE experience of UT messages?
>>
>>
>>>The Messages Area on the UT is a fine place to ask for help. It’s also a meeting place where developers have more fundamental discussions and keep things relaxed with an occasional joke. I like that all. However, IMO, the quality of the discussions is too often somewhat poor. I can think of several factors that may account for that poor quality. Before stating those negative factors, I’d like to present this list:
>>>
>>>1)
>>>A quality discussion requires that those involved have commitment. Without commitment people will not give serious attention by will.
>>>

Do you think new cateory would improve this? If yes, HOW?

>>>2)
>>>A quality discussion requires that those involved have enough time. Without available time, even if there’s enough commitment, people will not be able to give serious attention.
>>>

"elite" members of UT usually does not have time. Other members rarely do "quality" discussions.

>>>3)
>>>It’s necessary that people perceive that the discussion indeed is a quality discussion. The perception of the level of quality is one of the factors that influences people’s decision to commit and participate.
>>>

HOW people would know that discussion is of high quality? Some might think of it as about high technical level, others might think as about highly-detailed discussion etc. I understand well what you mean as "quality" discussion, but do others have such understanding?

>>>4)
>>>A quality discussion requires the adherence to a certain etiquette. Without a certain set of rules a discussion is at risk of bleeding to death or becoming a personal vendetta.
>>>

This puts an requirement to have high-moderating of such catgory. Great moderating is not a good factor for cooperation. More rules - more time required, less people would like category etc.

>>>5)
>>>The possibilities in the Message Area have impact on the quality of the discussion. Without a functionally adequate Message Area the participants have more difficulty in reacting and evaluating.
>>>

WHAT functionality you meant here? WHAT possibilities in the Message Area have impact on the quality of the discussion? Adding better functionality just for single categoru would cause even more tension between "elite" members and usual members of UT.

>>>6)
>>>A quality discussion requires a certain expert level of those involved. Too large differences between the expert levels of participants might give tensions. If the participants are lower experts, then high-expert observers (who don’t participate) might think of the discussions as being of poor quality, but the participants will think of them as being of fine quality.
>>>

I would say, large difference in understanding what is a "quality" discussion might give tensions. Non-expert with good logical thinking might bring very nice discussion, indeed, if knows etiquette and what is "quality" discussion. It remains a great taks and question - how to make wide range of people understand WHAT is quality discussion?

>>>
>>>Here’s a personal experience: I’m not always on the UT, but if I log in and read the messages, I regularly feel urged to reply, not only when I think I know the answer to a question, but also when I question the answer or part of the answer that was given by someone else. I think I’m not the only one who reacts in this way. Very often a practical question in a non-chatter area is the offset of a somewhat fundamental discussion. Only some of them are started by me. The thing that strikes me is that the quality of these discussions too often shrinks a lot, as soon as people start making only one or so remark, to the 'master piece' of someone else. Or they do not reply at all. Having experienced and seen this all some times now, I’m at a point where I say to myself: “Peter, stop, it’s not worth the investment. Your time is too precious to be spent on discussions that too often turn out to become of poor quality”.
>>>

Just read http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Above your paragraph is very similar to what is in Intorduction in that article. The problem you brought in this thread is VERY old, and yet nobody solved it just by creating new category.

Example is Russian VFP club - there is already such categroy. While there are 30-100 messages/day at that WEB site, high-expert forum there is not popular - 2-5 messages/month.

>>>Is there still hope for me? Well, what I’d appreciate is this:
>>>I propose that we ask Michel Fournier to create a new category: Holy Wars. The crux of that category is that people know that it’s meant for fundamental discussions (requirement 3), that those who decide to participate in a thread know that commitment and time are expected (requirements 1 and 2), that this category has its own etiquette (requirement 4) and that ideally the category has certain unique possibilities (requirement 5).
>>>
>>>Other thoughts about the details come to mind, but first I’d like to know what you all think of the basic idea of a new category.