nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Request to split ArcGIS geoprocessing forum into subtopics

ChrisSnyder

Hi,

I noticed that the ArcGIS "Functions" forum topics have the following breakdown as of 08/09/2010:

(apologies for the poor formatting...)
FORUM----------------------------THREADS%-------POSTS%
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CAD Data--------------------------1.00%------------0.64%
Cartography-----------------------4.44%------------4.36%
Data Models-----------------------3.08%------------2.14%
Enterprise GIS--------------------0.79%------------0.42%
Geocoding-------------------------0.36%------------0.16%
Geodatabases/ArcSDE------------27.22%----------27.94%
Geoprocessing--------------------45.27%-----------48.01%
Imagery/Raster Data-------------12.61%-----------12.11%
Interoperability and Standards--1.29%-------------0.73%
Map Automation------------------3.15%-------------3.18%
Map Templates--------------------0.79%-------------0.31%
Nautical Mapping------------------0.00%-------------0.00% (Nautical Mapping?)
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL------------------------------100%--------------100%

Based on this summary, it is quite easy to see that the Geoprocessing forum topic has by far the most traffic in terms of thread topics and "chatter" about those topics. I would like to formally request that esri split the existing Geoprocessing forum topic into at least three subtopics:

1. Geoprocessing (General)
2. ModelBuilder
3. Scripting (e.g. Python) - Personally I would put 'Map Automation via Python scripting' in here as well since it is so related...

Another simpler option would be to just create a new forum topic called "Scripting" 🙂

As a dedicated contributor to the poorly organized existing Geoprocessing forum, I find it hard to continue my contributions when there is an ever-increasing volume of seemingly non-relevant thread posts and an ever increasing level of disorganization within (in it's current state) an EXTREEMLY broad topic that obviously needs to be split into at least several sub-topics. in it's current incarnation, it includes nearly half of all the posts in the entire ArcGIS "Functions" category. Seems a bit out of whack to me...

Also, I have to say it: I am baffled that there is an apparently new forum topic called "Nautical Mapping" (0 posts so far), and NOT a dedicated ModelBuilder or Scripting forum. Cmon... Nautical Mapping?

What the?!?!

Please esri - I am not alone in my frustrations here...

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

JimBarry

Thanks for your suggestion.   We're all in favor of making improvements that make sense overall. Community tools need to continually evolve to fit the communities they serve.

Interesting stats. But our objective should be to help keep folks with similar interests together, not splitting a group because one forum is a lot more active than another. I mean, we wouldn't combine Geocoding, Cartography, CAD, Enterprise GIS, and Raster Data into one forum just because they get a lot less threads than GP does.

We think you're right that over-generalization needs to be watched out for. But of equal concern is over-fragmentation. That's the problem we had with the old forums.   There were too many forums to learn, too many straddle threads, and too many posts to each forum's "...General" bucket because they were more active and it was easier than being forced to learn our organization.

But as you pointed out, of utmost concern to us are our contributors. Without them the forums have no value, and it needs to be easier for them to participate.   If we're out of balance here, then we need to balance it.

So, if we're going to change something, what does that change break?   Are there more users who are only interested in Modelbuilder, and more users only interested in Python, and more users only interested in GP in general?   Or are there more users "doing GP" who are interested in all three?   The answer to that will tell us exactly what to do.

JimBarry

Is this Geoprocessing discussion forum too broad, too big, too general?

Should we consider splitting it up into smaller topics?

Perhaps:
a. Geoprocessing - General
b. Modelbuilder
c. Python
d. ...

Or what do you suggest? Or should GP discussions be all in one single forum like it is today?

What do you think?

DanPatterson_Retired

No...
Geoprocessing (gp and its incarnation within ArcMap) is the focus.

Modelbuilder and Python are the means to the end...Modelbuilder can be used in itself or, when exported, to see how Python programming can be used to exploit the gp.

One could argue that many field calculation operations involving shape geometry be included here, but they tend to go to the ArcMap General category.

One could also argue that gp-arcobjects "stuff" be included here, however, I would keep the gp-MB-py grouping together.

ChrisSnyder

One argument for splitting the existing Geoprocessing forum (or at least reorganizing it) is that it currently represents nearly 50% of all the forum threads/posts on the Functions topic. If you were a lumper, it could be argued that many of the other functions such as Geocoding, Map Automation, Interoperability, Imagery/Raster data, etc. should also be included as aspects of Geoprocessing. Doing so, however, would raise the "market share" of the Geoprocessing posts to roughly 65-70% of all the forum posts! Personally, I am a splitter rather than a lumper.

My suggestion is to keep the Geoprocessing forum as is and create a new forum simply called "Scripting". Keeping with the spirit of v10 (arcpy scripting being a major aspect), this potential Scripting forum would be the go-to place for posts regarding geoprocessing, mapping, spatial analyst, and geostatistical scripting.

Scripting (that is automating GIS "work" using a relatively high level computer language such as AML, Avenue, Python, etc.) is a central component of any reputable GIS. I for one am extremely excited that ESRI is putting a renewed emphasis on scripting in v10 (arcpy.mapping). Doing so is truly helping to rekindle the GIS Analyst caste that was, I think, somewhat lost when ESRI abandoned their old scripting languages like AML and Avenue and jumped head first into using ArcObjects and "real" programming languages as their default GIS automation technique.

Scripting deserves it's own forum.

ChrisSnyder

BTW: I think Jim deserves a Forum MVP medal next to his name - almost 400 posts! Thanks for your all hard work with the new system:)

RDHarles

No question that the "Geoprocessing" should be split up.

I'd break it down something like this (based on the users background):
1.) Python
2.) Modelbuilder
3) Tools (ArcToolBox)

All too often, I reply to what I think is a "python" post, only to find out the poster doesn't know anything about
python, or ModelBuilder for that matter. I find it very hard to tell what the poster is looking for in an answer and
exactly what backround/knowledge they have. I think having something like the above would help those who are
posting and certainly those who reply to posts.

TedCronin

No...
Geoprocessing (gp and its incarnation within ArcMap) is the focus.

Modelbuilder and Python are the means to the end...Modelbuilder can be used in itself or, when exported, to see how Python programming can be used to exploit the gp.

One could also argue that gp-arcobjects "stuff" be included here, however, I would keep the gp-MB-py grouping together.

Is this Geoprocessing discussion forum too broad, too big, too general?

Should we consider splitting it up into smaller topics?

Perhaps:
a. Geoprocessing - General
b. Modelbuilder
c. Python
d. ...

Or what do you suggest? Or should GP discussions be all in one single forum like it is today?

What do you think?

Yes, I think we should keep the I would keep the gp-MB-py grouping together grouping, but please no ArcObjects, unless its using comtypes with arcpy.

ChrisMathers

Well the best way would be a tagging/sorting system. Users are prompted to tag their posts and replys and then other users can sort whole threads by the tags within. That way if someone asks a question and the disscussion turns to python, anyone looking for posts with a python tag will see those threads only. This would be implimented as "sub-forums" so that users could view the entire GP area or only those posts pertaining to thier interest.

Sorry to be a fence sitter, but I think we should split and lump all at once! 😄

KevinHibma

I'm not voting one way or another, mainly because I see the benefits of both methods.

I just want to say that I see a good number of "workflow" posts...."how do I start this" or "how would I go about achieving goal X".
Very quickly someone will offer a "do it in ModelBuilder" or "you need to script that".
It would be hard for the original poster to put that question in the appropriate forum from the start. Or once they got an answer its now in a general forum instead of the scripting form. (And I don't say that with the thought of moving the original post...theres a lot of overhead on that).

The tagging idea (while I don't know if the forum technology supports it) would be a cool idea. The tags could give everyone the best of all worlds. One area for your GP questions, but if it ends up being a Python specific question, add the tag and everyone who loves Python can quickly find that post.

TedCronin

...That way if someone asks a question and the disscussion turns to python, anyone looking for posts with a python tag will see those threads only. This would be implimented as "sub-forums" so that users could view the entire GP area or only those posts pertaining to thier interest.

Like a filter, that would be nice. Something that can be set, even on our original settings for our user name, where we set specific tags to "Look Out For". Not sure if that is what is in reference here, but do like that idea.

JimBarry

I'm not voting one way or another, mainly because I see the benefits of both methods.

I just want to say that I see a good number of "workflow" posts...."how do I start this" or "how would I go about achieving goal X".
Very quickly someone will offer a "do it in ModelBuilder" or "you need to script that".
It would be hard for the original poster to put that question in the appropriate forum from the start. Or once they got an answer its now in a general forum instead of the scripting form. (And I don't say that with the thought of moving the original post...theres a lot of overhead on that).

The tagging idea (while I don't know if the forum technology supports it) would be a cool idea. The tags could give everyone the best of all worlds. One area for your GP questions, but if it ends up being a Python specific question, add the tag and everyone who loves Python can quickly find that post.

On the one hand, these forums do support adding tags to threads. Scroll to the bottom of each to see where they can be added.    As a practical matter, this would only be a strong solution if there were well-known and agreed upon (then learned and remembered) tag standards, applied to all appropriate threads all the time. How well or poorly this is done will determine how large the cracks are where threads fall.

That's why I'm thinking the most practical solution are either to keep the GP thread together as one, or to split them into two or three discrete and logical groups.   That way it's more plain to everyone which discussions go where, and no one has to remember if, when, or how to tag anything.

If we split them, I would recommend that we don't put the word "..General" into any of their names. What we saw with the old forums is that the "..General" forum ends up being the sock drawer.   There might be an MB forum and a PY forum, but they'll be an illusion as we all find that lots of MB and PY conversations (and General GP questions that straddle MB and PY) end up there too.

JimBarry

Yes, I think we should keep the I would keep the gp-MB-py grouping together grouping, but please no ArcObjects, unless its using comtypes with arcpy.

Understood. There is already an all-ArcObjects forum, and it would seem logical that it should remain as such until the data shows otherwise.

ChrisSnyder

I think that the tagging idea, like Jim hinted at, would be difficult to implement. For example:

1) Would a newbie forum user even know if/how/where to tag their post?
2) Would placement of tags be enforced somehow?
3) How would tag spelling and syntax be enforced (Python vs. Pie-thon etc.)

Many of us that contribute to the forum have a great deal of knowledge in specialty areas, and I personally feel that having more narrowly focused forum topics like:

1) Scripting
2) ModelBuilder
3) Geoprocessing Tools & Workflow

would allow both posters and contributors alike to more efficiently concentrate their time/energy to find the best solutions to problems in the shortest amount of time.

DanPatterson_Retired

See Bill Huber's August 13 submission at
http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/1887-MVP-Program-for-Discussion-Forums
for cross-link ideas

ChrisMathers

I think that Bills "cross link" idea is good but contains a flaw. In my mind I see this as implimenting a crawler in the forum that indexes keywords from the posts instead of (or on top of) manual tagging. I think the only issue with this is that if the crawler isnt sophisticated enough it may see "You could do this with python instead of ArcObjects more quickly" in one post and "You should really be doing this with ArcObjects" in another and would put both into the ArcObjects forum.

Another issue would be whether the crawler indexes on only the first post or on replys as well. Indexing both would solve the problem of a poster not knowing where to put their post, but could result in massive cross posting depending on how lively the replys get. A GP post could in theory wind up in python, MB, ArcObjects, and in the extension forums.

In the end this is suggesting a robust auto-tagging system with the forums being querys on the tags instead of being traditional forums.

DaveBouwman

Here's the thing - "GeoProcessing" as a concept has multiple implementations, and while many times they can be "equal" in terms of output, they are very different in terms of audience and situational constraints.

For example - in my opinion, ModelBuilder is evil. This may or may not be the actual case, but since I come from a coding background, I'm highly skeptical of any draggy-droppy code magic thing. I do however groove with Python, and massively appreciate the productivity gains as compared to ArcObjects.

And similarly, for people who come from a pure "GIS Analyst" background, never to have their minds corrupted with the various incarnations of ITopologicalOperator, ModelBuilder is pure awesome.

By lumping these two types of users and the associated tooling into one forum, you're doing a disservice to everyone. Forums only work if they are quick and easy to use, especially for the power-users who are likely to actually contribute answers to the conversation.

So - split'em...

Forum a) Draggers & Droppers (The Dark Arts of Model Builder)
Forum b) White space matters (Zen and the Art of ArcPy)

Cheers,

Dave

ChrisSergent

I would like to see Geoprocessing having a section specific to ArcGIS Server. Specifically I would like to see some ArcGIS Server Python examples.

Chris

Is this Geoprocessing discussion forum too broad, too big, too general?

Should we consider splitting it up into smaller topics?

Perhaps:
a. Geoprocessing - General
b. Modelbuilder
c. Python
d. ...

Or what do you suggest? Or should GP discussions be all in one single forum like it is today?

What do you think?

TedCronin

Forum a) Draggers & Droppers (The Dark Arts of Model Builder)
Forum b) White space matters (Zen and the Art of ArcPy)

Now this I like.

DanPatterson_Retired

Forum a) Draggers & Droppers (The Dark Arts of Model Builder)
Forum b) White space matters (Zen and the Art of ArcPy)
Forum C) Far too much overhead (ArcObjects)

And a amplfication to b) syntax matters
Splitting is not an option, the user needs to be "trained" to formulate their questions appropriately.. with tags or whatever.

ChrisMathers

Well I think that the three forum GP break down would work for people who know what they want to do in a general sort of way but still leaves out the people who dont know where their post should go. We need an extra forum for people with "How should I do this?" questions. Their post may wind up being in a, b, or c but not until they know which avenue to go down.

Forum a) Draggers & Droppers (The Dark Arts of Model Builder)
Forum b) White space matters (Zen and the Art of ArcPy)
Forum c) Far too much overhead (ArcObjects)
Forum d) How do you spell geoprocessor? (General questions)

Edit: I would like to add that a #GP may be a good idea. Its harder to moderate an IRC channel than a forum, but for syntax questions #python is very helpful and would cut out a lot of one post-one reply chatter.

SheriNorton

Yes - but I really like the idea of separate forums for Model Builder versus Python. I've used both, but VERY novice with Python and would love to field questions to folks specific to that subject.

JimBarry

Thanks everyone for all of the opinions so far. Keep them coming and get your friends to weigh in.

Once discussion on this thread starts to slow down considerably, we'll make a decision based on what you collectively want.

KevinHibma

I know I already chimmed in with an opinion, but at that time I wasn't leaning one way or another.
After putting more thought into it I'm placing my vote on leaving the forum as-is.

Why?
Because I think the forum should be easiest to use by those who use it the least. I realize that may seem like backward logic but the majority of people who have responded to this thread are the ones who answer questions day in and day out. I don't have numbers to back any assumptions up, but I'd wager that the majority of users on here are very casual users. I wouldn't want to see people frustrated on the simple point of where to place a question. (submitting your question to the right spot shouldnt be a hurdle, just getting the answer is the hurdle)

I do sympathize with the "answer-ers" though. The ones who come here every day want to find the topics they care about the most and can answer quickly. You're all doing this because you want too, because you enjoy helping and of course you should be able to do that in an easy and efficient manner.

Thats my 3cents. A lot of good discussion so far from the community, hope to see more...

JimBarry

Good points Kevin. Either way, we have to make it easy and useful for both askers and answerers. It's sort of a chicken-egg problem, so we need them both.

If it's not easy to ask, then there's a lot less to answer.
But if it's not easy to answer, then there's little point to asking.

DanPatterson_Retired

Kevin
so is that a wobbly "don't split" as I suggested?
I am pushing in that direction...lean there

KevinHibma

Kevin
so is that a wobbly "don't split" as I suggested?
I am pushing in that direction...lean there

Exactly, Dan.
Jim just said it a little more eloquently by using the chicken and the egg reference.
But trust that my vote doesn't count. I'll continue to check the forum(s) regardless of their direction. The only votes that count are the ones without esri staff beside them. That's why these are User Forums

. I'm just trying to contribute something productive to the discussion.

RDHarles

I think the forum should be easiest to use by those who use it the least. I realize that may seem like backward logic but the majority of people who have responded to this thread are the ones who answer questions day in and day out. I don't have numbers to back any assumptions up, but I'd wager that the majority of users on here are very casual users. I wouldn't want to see people frustrated on the simple point of where to place a question. (submitting your question to the right spot shouldnt be a hurdle, just getting the answer is the hurdle)

You may be right that the majority of users are casual users but I totally disagree that leaving one generic forum makes posting easier. When the new forum first came out, I bet it took me 15 minutes to figure out where to find the "python forum". I never even considered it would be all lumped together in a forum called "Geoprocessing". I would bet one forum makes it more difficult for the casual user, especially for those that are looking for a specific problem solved like 'model builder' or 'python'.

ChrisMathers

Well R.D. are you then in favor of a forum split into Scripting and MB? Scripting could be also named Python to remove any confusion with Objects. Frankly if you are going deep enough into this stuff that you have decided to learn Objects, you probably can find the Objects forum that already exists on your own. We dont see many Objects questions in the general GP forum so I think its fair to assume those people know what to look for in that regard. Having a Python forum though would pull some of the Map Auto people into the Python forum, but there was a bit of an overlap there anyways. I think there is a consensus that general GP without mandating tagging is confusing but splitting without maintaining a general forum of some sort will dissuade the uninitiated.

RDHarles

Well R.D. are you then in favor of a forum split into Scripting and MB?

I am still in favor of those being split. I still believe the forums would best be split based on the person's background (whether you're the poster or answering the post):

1.) Python
2.) Modelbuilder
3) Tools (ArcToolBox)

For those that don't yet know where to put their question, I don't think there's any great solution. It seem they are going to have to pick one and it won't always be right. Having said that, it's still better if the majority of questions get into the correct forum than to have to weed through all questions in one general forum.

DanPatterson_Retired

as I said way back up in this thread...

No...
Geoprocessing (gp and its incarnation within ArcMap) is the focus.

Modelbuilder and Python are the means to the end...Modelbuilder can be used in itself or, when exported, to see how Python programming can be used to exploit the gp.

the synergy between modelbuilder/python and doing geoprocessing "stuff" needs to be maintained. Many people use modelbuilder to export out to python. Having a separate Python forum would invite all the posters with non-geoprocessing issues to post there (ie the mapping module etc etc). Keep the focus on geoprocessing by whatever means other than arcobjects which is more the clicky, dancy, fancy stuff for those that want it. Arctoolbox provides the "nest" for models and Python scripts, subdividing further will no bode well. It reminds me of the division between Dialog Designer and the Avenue forum of yore

Join the Conversation

Signed in members can post, follow updates, and more. New here? Register a free account.

Quick Links

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.