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...

タグ付けされた投稿をもっと見る

Accepted answers

All comments

DanPatterson_Retired

Since I am no longer commenting on this thread (final promise)...I await Jim and the Friday-beer-lubricated-gp team to chime in...or more importantly someone other our current contributors from the vast number of viewers to post their contributions. If this is all we have to offer and there are no other opinions, then they should be able to implement a decision.
Regards
4 forum reader max

TedCronin

but please do not go back to the old style.

I guess a bit of clarification. It seems that slowly but surely more forum sections are being generated, and now they want SDE broken out, so that is what I mean by old style. Fix the search, institute better tagging, limit the forum topics, so if new ones are to be added for gp, have only 3 rather than 4. Less is more.

DanPatterson_Retired

I agree with Bill 100%
As for no forum, and just threads...I hate it somewhat
although interesting
http://gis.stackexchange.com/
it has its flaws...my point was that the user shouldn't be able to post unless they had selected some tags, and each forum should have some sort of identified tag system associated with it (grief...another debate)...but you get the drift...if someone wants to "do" something and it involves Python or Modelbuilder, then they should specify which one, as a tag, their access point. If I don't want to read modelbuilder tags, I can avoid them...which I can do now if I want in the Geoprocessing forum
In any event, Jim and the gp team will have a good time after work discussing the forum contributions over beers tonight.

My absolute last post on this topic...no matter how tempted..and given the number of view, I am also stunned at the lack of contribution to this topic...nobody cares unless it answers their immediate question...my answer...the help files...or a course and exhaust all avenues before you waste digital space

ChrisSnyder

I agree, this has probably gone on much too long...

But... one last blurb (well maybe not the last).

having a separate Python thread may attract a whole lot of flies from the cartography forum

Not sure they would be flies, but... Actually that's one of the point I made very early on in this discussion... With v10, it would no longer be "Python Geoprocessing" but "Python Scripting" (as in a method to automate GIS processes - cartography included). I'd argue that cartography is, in fact, a form of "geoprocessing". BTW: http://wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Geoprocessing has a decent definition. It's hard to have a GIS "visualization" without some form of visual map, image, animation, table, graph, etc.. Cartography automation through scripting is certainly part of the "geoprocessing" equation. I'd put forth a much simpler definition for geoprocessing: Deriving information from geographic data.

workflows can mean BOTH modelbuilder and python

By "Workflow", I mean the steps needed to accomplish a "geoprocessing task" that is devoid of the automation provided by Python scripting or Model Builder. It could be combined with the Geoprocessing Tools forum quite easily since most complex "geoprocessing" workflows involve analytical analysis rather than cartography/visualizations, but then again... Really, it wouldn't kill me to drop the "workflow" thing, just an idea.

Dan I have to ask: Do you think it a good idea to lump all the forums together if ESRI could institute a robust tagging system? I think it's a great idea! However, in the world I have experience with (the real one), I know that robust tagging probably won't happen, and that my simple request to split a crowded and multi-faceted forum topic probably has a much higher probability of actually occurring in the near future.

I really like Bill Hubber's comment here: http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/1757-New-Site-Very-Disappointing?p=19661&viewfull=1#post19661 and some of the ones further down.

I'd also love to eventually see the Help systems integrated with the forum systems for a help-wiki hybrid. Maybe the existing help systems (complete with the existing drill-down structure) with a built in wiki-forum section for each help section topic - maybe even a bug and improvement wish list section!. That would indeed be very innovative, efficient, and helpful to all users and ESRi staff! Then all the forum/wiki entries could be searched, abstracted, mixed, match however anyone felt necessary (given the proper interface to do that).

Do I think that will happen anytime soon?

Cmon... But here's to wishful thinking!

DanPatterson_Retired

Grief...although I promised silence...
workflows can mean BOTH modelbuilder and python...I don't think we need it (sorry Chris). I still vote for no split...and I don't want any VB/Java stuff in there (doesn't seem to be an issue in the new forums) AND having a separate Python thread may attract a whole lot of flies from the cartography forum. This debate will go on for ages...I know I will only look at 4 forums a day period...I will pick and choose according to titles...ArcGIS Desktop General is on...which I think should be killed.

In a perfect world...a "poster" would click on what they think are their appropriate tags...auto-magically...the forum would select the most appropriate forum to place the post, the poster would be notified and everything would be in its perfect place....

On a Friday note...the need for these forums, other than installation issues, would be greatly reduced if people got training (online or otherwise) and used the online help files. I still find it amazing that many questions can be answered by a simple search on the online help. Forcing posters to select tags prior to their post being selected might get them to think of the key-words that are important. However, living in a dream-world is not productive, so I will stick with the number 4.

JimBarry

I am not averse to 4 categories like Chris S. mentions, but please do not go back to the old style.

Just to recap a little...

The old style for GP were three forums:
"ArcGIS Desktop - Geoprocessing ArcToolbox"
"ArcGIS Desktop - Geoprocessing Modelbuilder"
"ArcGIS Desktop - Geoprocessing Scripting (Python, JavaScript, VB)"

At the moment we have some support for three new ones:
"Geoprocessing Tools"
"Modelbuilder"
"Python Scripting"

...and then seeing who else jumps on Chris' idea for a 4th:
"Geoprocessing Workflows"

TedCronin

After Chris Mathers became decided, the votes are 6 to 2 in favor of splitting. So, splitting the Geoprocessing forum is the consensus (sorry Dan and Chris: I think you are right, but splitting is more right).

I think I would actually be a part of the no split group which would still only be 5 to 3, but then Kevin was a no split as well which means that it is actually 4 to 4, right. I think that esri votes should count, but perhaps with less weight from a User perspective, but from a support the forums perspective perhaps a bit more weight. So isn't it actually tied, unless esri people don't count. I just like Dave's, Dan's and Chris' naming ideas. I am not averse to 4 categories like Chris S. mentions, but please do not go back to the old style.

JimBarry

Jim,
Sorry for the resurgence/mentioning of the organization, tagging and drill down ideas. Those are beside the point...

Ok for now that's good. Because I've taken a few stabs at comprehensively designing out your idea fully and from the angles I've tried so far it becomes a knarly mess. I know it doesn't seem that way as you sketched it out quickly with only a few examples. But so far it's a mess. Ok, not quite 200 nodes, but close. Throw out? No. But it's an idea that would need to be played out quite a bit before its usability seems simpler. Perhaps you're just looking at it from the perspective of an GIS Pro who mostly uses Desktop, I don't know. The Esri-wide landscape of products, functional uses, and user personas is a lot larger than that.

After Chris Mathers became decided, the votes are 6 to 2 in favor of splitting.

To be candid, I sort of wish we had more input than 8 people. Are there dozens or hundreds of users out there who are mostly ok with it being one forum and just didn't weigh in? I guess after splitting I'll see if we get a wave of complaints. Or if in using the split forums we start to see more misposting, cross-posting, etc. But after we opened it up for input, only right to go with the opinions of those who took the time to speak up.

1. Close the "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum topic, and redirect it to a new forum topic called "Other/General" in the Functions section. As I think Dan was trying to point out, the majority of ArcGIS Desktop questions are being posted to the "General" forum, and in fact the vast majority concern a "function".

Not unless the list of functions is also comprehensively expanded to cover all logical functional groupings. The current "Functions" list only includes the major ones.

I don't think this was ESRI's intention at all,

No, you're right it wasn't. The intention was to create "Functions" forums to directly support the "Functions" sections of the resource center. Just major functions that would support large communities of users and forum activity. These functions (like GP, Raster, Geocoding, Carto, etc.) should not be fragmented by product. That was a big mistake in the old forums. These are issues and concepts that apply regardless if you are a Desktop user, creating and managing servers and services, or designing and coding applications.

"Other/General" forum (properly placed in the Functions section - NOT the Products section -

I can only see this helping if we reorganize the forums to contain only Functions and eliminate any breakdown by Product. As many reasons as you can give why we should do this (and it's an intriguing idea I don't yet disagree with), there are reasons against. For one, there are still issues that are specific to "products", like installation, configuration, licensing.

I think I'm hearing that your confusion comes from the fact that the Functions forums are incomplete, hence the Product-General forums end up being the leftover bucket. If so, will anyone watch or care about an even larger "general" bucket called "Functions General/Other"? I don't know. Just asking.

ModelBuilder
Scripting (Python)
Tools (ArcToolbox)
Workflow

Well, the good news is that we can try that. It'll take some work to split threads backwards, but probably just a few days. Going forward it will work. And if it fails miserably, merging them back into one will take a few minutes to do. Of course our hope and expectation is that the split forums will succeed.

Anyway... I'm done.

I hope not. You've given us a lot of your time and ideas. All greatly appreciated. I hope at the same time you can appreciate that we cannot look at this from only the perspective of one type of user, or one person's perspective. Any change we make - of any kind - is going to be liked by some and thought by others as us trying hard to make their life difficult.

ChrisSnyder

Jim,

Sorry for the resurgence/mentioning of the organization, tagging and drill down ideas. Those are beside the point...

After Chris Mathers became decided, the votes are 6 to 2 in favor of splitting. So, splitting the Geoprocessing forum is the consensus (sorry Dan and Chris: I think you are right, but splitting is more right).

Also, after looking at some of the recent posts to the the "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum , I have some suggestions:

1. Close the "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum topic, and redirect it to a new forum topic called "Other/General" in the Functions section. As I think Dan was trying to point out, the majority of ArcGIS Desktop questions are being posted to the "General" forum, and in fact the vast majority concern a "function". I don't think this was ESRI's intention at all, but was the logical outcome due to the organization of the new forum and the confusion surrounding it. I would put forth that most posters to the "General" forum don't even know about the Functions sections. Simply redirecting the existing General forum to a new "Other/General" forum (properly placed in the Functions section - NOT the Products section - as it probably should have been originally), would force users to see that there are more focused forum topics for them to post to than "General".

2. Split the existing Geoprocessing forum into:

ModelBuilder
Scripting (Python)
Tools (ArcToolbox)
Workflow

I believe that a "Workflow" forum would be quite interesting and popular. Many users that post questions in the "General" and the Geoprocessing forum simply want to know the steps needed to get to a desired result. I strongly believe a "Workflow" forum would be one of the most popular and heavily monitored by contributors such as myself, Dan, R.D., etc. (you could always redirect/delete it if I'm wrong).

On a side note, I noticed that the "Extensions" forum was recently split into it's proper constituents, so it seems there is a good and recent precedent for splitting the lumps...

Anyway... I'm done.

ChrisSnyder

...would multi-level expandable trees that drill down to over 200 nodes be cleaner and simpler than what we have now, which is a single flat level of about 60 forums?

Not sure about 200 nodes (completely expanded w/ all software "products" maybe), but based on what I see here:

http://forums.arcgis.com/forums/3-ArcGIS

and

http://forums.arcgis.com/index.php

I would have to answer yes, a "multi-level expandable trees that drill down... would be cleaner and simpler than what we have now".

Even at the lowest (most drill downs) level I mentioned:

ArcGIS Desktop > Functions > Geoprocessing > Automation > ModelBuilder - That's only 5 nodes

Anyway, just an idea...

Split.
Tag.
Drill down.
It's all the same.

Something to make it easier to wade through the newly lumped forums.
Empower and encourage contributors to share their knowledge.

ChrisSnyder

@ Dan: That is pretty cool...
@ Jim: Maybe a hybrid?

Tags would work if:

1. There is a pick list of standardized tags.
2. The tag pick list is HIGHLY visible (before the message body) and it's obvious that you can and should put multiple tags.
3. You are required to provide at least one tag.
4. There is some "gateway" page that gives easy access to "tag pages" (example: the "Python Tag Page" gateway lists all the posts tagged with "Python").

On the flip side (my side): Splitting the forums is a quick and easy way to enforce lower-level categorization (a pseudo-tag if you will).

JimBarry

Hmm... I'm confused.

Of course you make some good points Chris. But for any good idea is at least a con or two against. For example, would multi-level expandable trees that drill down to over 200 nodes be cleaner and simpler than what we have now, which is a single flat level of about 60 forums? I don't know. If I thought first "I'm using a software product", then maybe. But if I thought first "I'm trying to do -something-", then maybe not.

I tell you what I'm fairly convinced of though. Regardless of how we design it, there will be a handful of users who will voice quite strongly that we chose the dumbest way possible. 😉

JimBarry

Chris et al. check this out
http://gis.stackexchange.com/
click on a tag and you get what your want, specify your tags of interest and you can ignore the garbage...no threading...just what you want to look at and answer...soooo the onus is on the user to tag their questions in the hopes that they will get an answer...crappy tags...no answers...a potential model BUT if separate forums are to be kept, then tags should/need be a must/wish/hope

I think most who use them would say that StackOverflow/StackExchange is probably the best design for a Q&A site. Are you saying it's time to consider leaving threaded discussions behind and support only Q&A?

DanPatterson_Retired

Chris et al. check this out
http://gis.stackexchange.com/
click on a tag and you get what your want, specify your tags of interest and you can ignore the garbage...no threading...just what you want to look at and answer...soooo the onus is on the user to tag their questions in the hopes that they will get an answer...crappy tags...no answers...a potential model BUT if separate forums are to be kept, then tags should/need be a must/wish/hope

ChrisSnyder

Dan, it's funny since, before you mentioned it, I didn't even know there was an ArcGIS Desktop - General topic in the new forum! I guess that shows either how out of the loop I am or how poorly the new forum is organized. Probably a combination of the two....

Personally, I find it strange that ESRI designed the new forum in such an unusual way: With various elements of ArcGIS desktop functionality scattered about in different forum sections instead of one section called "ArcGIS Desktop" with all the ArcGIS Desktop-related forums organized underneath in a drill down-type menu structure:

+ ArcGIS Desktop
   - Installations
   - ArcObjects
   - Spatial Analyst
   - Network Analyst
   - Scripting (Python)
   - Cartography
   - Work Flows
   - Model Builder
   - Other (General) #Make sure this one is at the bottom, right?!?

Or maybe even...

+ ArcGIS Desktop
   + Extentions
      - Spatial Analyst
      - Network Analyst
   + Functions
      - Cartography
      + Geoprocessing
         + Automation
            - Scripting (Python)
            - Model Builder
         - Tools (ArcToolbox)
         - Workflows

Who knows...

One would think people generally know what software they are using (Desktop vs. ImageServer vs. ArcIMS), and it seems pretty logical to organize a forum in that way as well. I understand that many ESRI products share functionality, for example, you can use ModelBuilder with both ArcGIS Server and ArcGIS Desktop (no reason that a ModelBuilder topic from ArcGIS Server and ArcGIS Desktop can't point to the same "ModelBuilder" forum, right? Makes sense...). However, ESRI's interpretation of these related functions/topics results in something that, to me, appears very cluncky, confusing, and non-intuitive.

Perhaps ESRI staff could one day redesign the interface to create more of the drill-down/expandable structure based on Software? That would be very intuitive!

Along those lines, it's pretty easy to understand why there are so many posts to the "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum (that should & could be put under one of the exisitng Function topics):
1) The current forum is confusing to navigate since it organizes the forum using this new and different concept of "shared" and "related" functionality, and not a flat and understandable software-centric aproach.
2) The "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum topic is at the top of the forum lists: See http://forums.arcgis.com/ and http://forums.arcgis.com/forums/4-Products!

Question: Are all these ArcGIS Desktop-related forum topics really "Products" (they are all listed under the "Products" sub-heading)? Maybe I'm alone here, but when I think "Product" I think of a particular software, and not:

1) ArcGIS Desktop - General
2) ArcGIS Desktop - Extensions
3) ArcGIS Desktop - Installation, Configuration
4) ArcObjects - All Development Languages

Hmm... I'm confused.

DanPatterson_Retired

I would also invite people who read this thread to examine the "ArcGIS Desktop - General" forum. In there you will find "stuff" which should be in Arcobjects, Mapping, spatial analyst, and a whole whack of "geoprocessing" questions. For the most part, I suspect that people put their question in the forum that they think will get the most traffic. By suggesting/indicating via popup etc, what is appropriate material for a forum, then perhaps we could dispense with "General" altogether and put an "Other" category way at the bottom of the list perhaps enticing individuals to place their posts in a forum that is appropriate. Further subdivision...based upon what is in the "General" forum...won't make matters easier.

So...Geoprocessing should be described (I suspect there a lot of people who don't have a definition, and I suspect people's definitions would differ). I suggest that this would include MB, Python and Arctoolbox (we will leave the ArcObjects people along) and the term relating to calculating, working with geometry and the like. There is going to be no perfect answer, but tags etc would go a long way, in this way, I could simply click on my preferred tag cloud and get all threads for my interest regardless where they were placed. Special interest forums for the extensions could then remain where they were and there will undoubtedly be overlap between geoprocessing and their parent forum. That's it for me on this topic...keep it coming

ChrisMathers

Since I am undecided, Ill cast my vote for no split. I wanted rigorous tagging implimented but if that isnt viable from a development stand point I suppose I will just deal with it. I like having one GP forum for the same reason I use an RSS reader. It saves time for me. I would be reading the same number of posts but would havet to navigate to three forums to read them.

JimBarry

...and I will reiterate, those with questions "my exported script from Modelbuilder doesn't work" will post in both a "hope it doesn't exist" Python section along with the Python mapping folk.
In any event, I know which forums I will check and as the list gets longer, the chances of visits will get shorter for many people...train the dog 🙂

Right or wrong, Dan's point above pretty much describes a primary reason for why the 3 old GP forums were collapsed into 1 new one.

So let me ask the group...

If we split this one forum into three, it may seem more right to put all Python stuff into this bucket over here and Modelbuilder issues into that bucket over there, but if you are using Geoprocessing in ArcGIS, isn't splitting them just going to make most users want to keep their eye on three forums instead of one?

I mean, I am really asking that in an open way, not in a "help me prove my point" way. My point doesn't count. I'm all for advocating that we do this the way YOU ALL want, not the way I might want it. I'm just trying to make sure I understand how you all use the forums.

JimBarry

Regardless of your beliefs either way, the vote tally so far (ESRI employees are not included):

Thanks for taking the time to tabulate. Sounds like we're getting close to tying up this thread and taking some action. We just wanted to make sure anyone who wanted a voice got plenty of chance.

(ESRI employees are not included):

Well, for what it's worth, I've spoken with a bunch of Esri staff about this, especially those from the GP team and Tech Support, and votes are fairly well split. Even if you counted us in, it won't help the tally become any more clear.

Personally, I think the tag idea has merit. However, with the new forum and resource center site in it's current state of dysfunctionality, the chance of an already busy ESRI staff quickly implementing a brand new method (that presumably requires substantial R&D) to consistently "scrape" and apply appropriate "metatags" to forum posts is exceedingly unlikely.

Fwiw, I think the tag idea is a good one but only if done manually by moderators who really know what they're doing. I would not trust automation built on a rulebase. I'd wonder if the effort to continue dialing-in the rules and the error rate of miscategorizing is more than the effort to manually moderate an average of 6 new threads per day. And then there are those threads that would straddle the three forums if they were split the old way. No manual or automated process completely solves that.

I think ESRI had it right in the old forum, and it seemed to work quite well. In the interest of helping posters and contributors alike, my vote is for ESRI to swiftly split the existing Geoprocessing Forum into:

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

Correct. If we went back to the old way, it would be those three.

BTW: Cudos to ESRI for getting rid of the 'Nautical Mapping' forum...

Well, not got rid of, just moved. It's the "Esri Nautical Solution" forum now, under the Solutions section.

DanPatterson_Retired

rename Nautical Mapping, Modelbuilder
and I will reiterate, those with questions "my exported script from Modelbuilder doesn't work" will post in both a "hope it doesn't exist" Python section along with the Python mapping folk.
In any event, I know which forums I will check and as the list gets longer, the chances of visits will get shorter for many people...train the dog 🙂

ChrisSnyder

Regardless of your beliefs either way, the vote tally so far (ESRI employees are not included):

Disclamer: If I put someone in the wrong category - all apologies.

NO SPLIT (1 vote)
----------------
Dan Patterson
Ted Cronin originally was 'No Split' but then appeared to change his mind here: http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/10092-Should-this-forum-be-SPLIT?p=32651&viewfull=1#post32651, so unless he says otherwise, I am putting him in the 'yes' category.

YES SPLIT (6 votes):
---------------
Chris Snyder
R.D Harles
Ted Cronin
Dave Bouwman
Chris Sergant
Sheri Norton

UNDECIDED (1 vote):
---------------
Chris Mathers

Personally, I think the tag idea has merit. However, with the new forum and resource center site in it's current state of dysfunctionality, the chance of an already busy ESRI staff quickly implementing a brand new method (that presumably requires substantial R&D) to consistently "scrape" and apply appropriate "metatags" to forum posts is exceedingly unlikely.

I think ESRI had it right in the old forum, and it seemed to work quite well. In the interest of helping posters and contributors alike, my vote is for ESRI to swiftly split the existing Geoprocessing Forum into:

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

BTW: Cudos to ESRI for getting rid of the 'Nautical Mapping' 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

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.

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

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'.

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.

DanPatterson_Retired

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

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.

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

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.

会話に参加する

サインインしたメンバーは投稿、更新のフォローなどができます。初めてですか？無料アカウントを登録してください。

クイックリンク

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