Request to split ArcGIS geoprocessing forum into subtopics

ChrisSnyder · ‎08-09-2010

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? :confused: What the?!?!

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

JimBarry · ‎09-08-2010

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. 😉

ChrisSnyder · ‎09-08-2010

@ 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).

ChrisSnyder · ‎09-08-2010

...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 · ‎09-09-2010

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.

JimBarry · ‎09-09-2010

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.

TedCronin · ‎09-10-2010

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 · ‎09-10-2010

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"

DanPatterson_Retired · ‎09-10-2010

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.

ChrisSnyder · ‎09-10-2010

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 · ‎09-10-2010

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