Watercooler and other categories

(Sarah Hawk) #1

Continuing the discussion from We need to change our behaviour here at Experts:

  1. We need a name for our Watercooler category. I quite like Darren’s idea of “Virtual Pub” although it’s possible that it might be ambiguous for new members (or might work by luring them in out of curiosity!). What are your thoughts?

  2. @JoeBuhlig has sensibly suggested that more than one category might take away some of the onus when it comes to giving a new topic context. I agree and think that we’re at a point now where we have so many conversations that it makes sense, although I’d like to limit it to no more than 2 or 3. What categories make sense?

(JoeBuhlig) #2

The ones that come to mind:

  1. Software and mechanics. There seem to be a number of topics about Discourse or other technology.
  2. Something around users. I’m thinking about acquisition, retention, and understanding users and their actions.
  3. Situations. These would specific and detailed situations in a users community. I’m thinking specifically about a recent topic created about monetization.

(Sarah Hawk) #3

To simplify (for the sake of labelling), how about Platforms, Users and Strategies? Are those intuitive enough?

(JoeBuhlig) #4

My only hesitation is with Platforms but that might be because I’m coming from a blogging background where I’ve frequently referred to my site as my platform.

(Sarah Hawk) #5

And you wouldn’t say the same for community?

(JoeBuhlig) #6

I probably would. Platform might be the easiest name for it. Just putting my thoughts out there.

(Sarah Hawk) #7

@Kristen_Gastaldo @Darren_Gough @Nick_Emmett @purldator @Doug_Agee @Mjbill @colleenyoung (tagged because you were part of the troubleshooting thread about behaviour change and engagement).

Any thoughts on a name for the Watercooler?

And to extrapolate further, any opinions on splitting out Community Discussions into 3 categories (Platforms, Users and Strategies)? It’s something I’ve been thinking on for a while (our one category is getting cumbersome) and Joe’s logic (that it’s a bit intimidating to new posters to have a ‘catch all’) makes sense.

(Nick Emmett) #8

How about the FeverBucks - the virtual coffee shop?

I’m not really convinced about splitting the conversation stream back up - haven’t we just switched from that really, suggesting it didn’t really work previously? If it were to be split up again, I’d probably look to do it around the kind of thing people are searching for, or commenting about in the surveys/SPRINT feedback etc. I suspect platforms could be one, Engagement could possibly be another. Can you tag posts in Discourse, like a #? I’m not really sure on this one. My immediate response is that I don’t think it’s needed right now. All the posts go into one feed now so hopefully, a good or interesting title is what draws me in.

(Sarah Hawk) #9

What we had before was a set of private categories, and one big public category.
The private/public split didn’t work, but that was unrelated to category count.

But I hear you – I’d be interested to see what others think.

(Mark Baldwin) #10

Small talk, big ideas
Big ideas, small talk

Is cabin fever inappropriate? :slight_smile:

(Sarah Hawk) #11

Nothing is inappropriate!

I actually like Small Talk (by itself). I think that’s obvious at a glance to new members.

(Doug Agee) #12

I tend to spend time thinking about a name before I land on something I like. My thoughts for a watercooler category would be to evoke an image of a break room or patio. I will keep processing the idea.

(Sarah Hawk) #13

I’ve called it Small Talk for now (so that I could get it actioned) but I’m very open to changing that if someone comes up with something too clever or hilarious to ignore.