160 replies to this topic

[Vitesse2]

Over the past few weeks, the moderation team have been kicking around some ideas about a possible new sub-forum. What we’d like to do now is put those ideas before you, the members, to see:

1 If you think it’s a good idea.
2 How you would like to see it evolve.

What we’re proposing is an area where discussion of matters concerning fairly recent events in any sort of motorised sport – racing, rallying, hillclimbing, rallycross, bikes and maybe even the likes of drifting, speedway, air racing or powerboating if you want – can take place.

Racing Comments is essentially for ‘matters of moment’, but that does mean that it is restricted to what is currently happening in the sport, whereas there are some topics which – while we realise they are worthy of discussion – either don’t really fall within the remit of the Nostalgia Forum or would simply not attract the number of eyes.

The Nostalgia Forum’s primary function is the discussion and research of the sport’s history – although we don’t rule out a bit of chat! As a rule of thumb though, we try to limit that discussion to events from more than about fifteen years ago and/or which involve drivers who are no longer competing at the highest levels of the sport. That of course means that (for example) Dario Franchitti and Jenson Button are potentially TNF subjects, whereas Juan Pablo Montoya and Fernando Alonso are not.

So the idea behind this sub-forum, which would be under the umbrella of Racing Comments and (mainly) the responsibility of the RC moderators, is to give you an area in which ‘modern history’ could be discussed. We’re open to suggestions on exactly when ‘modern history’ begins and ends – opinions amongst the moderation team have varied between ‘1988-2006’, ‘1989-2008’, ‘1989 or later, but at least 10 years ago, cars or bikes, it's up to you’ and ‘a rolling more than five years ago’. Obviously the start date would also be to a certain extent flexible; you can’t discuss Nigel Mansell’s exploits in CART and brief F1 return without referring back to his 1980s career for example, but the main focus would need to be within whatever the defined parameters eventually turn out to be. We're aware that some TNFers are already/still active in RC and so, although this new subforum will be part of RC, we hope it will act as a meeting place between RC and TNF posters - and maybe convince some people that what they might think of as 'the other place' isn't really all that scary or intimidating.

We’re also open to suggestions about what the subforum should be called. So, er, fire away.

Feel free to add suggestions, bouquets or brickbats below. There are threads in both RC and TNF. Or, if you’d prefer, you can PM me or Tim Murray - or any of these RC moderators: Risil, SophieB, goingthedistance and PayasYouRace. We’ll be having a parallel discussion ‘behind the curtain’, so anything suggested by PM will also be taken into account.

[pacificquay]

Gut instinct is no.

 

Everything that is suggested for discussion in this post should go in the Nostalgia Forum.

 

If it's not current, it's nostalgia.

 

Doing so helps keep "nostalgia" alive and keeps the forum busy enough to be interesting.

 

Multiple splinter forums tend to kill things.

[BRG]

 

If it's not current, it's nostalgia.

I agree.  There is too much of a silo mentality in TNF as it is, which seems to think that 20th century good, 21st century bad.   it is all motorsport and it is all part of one great and wonderful whole.

[B Squared]

I've seen a large drop in posts and discussions at TNF since joining about 10 years ago. I find myself in RC far more often now. I tend to agree with the prior two gentlemen's thoughts on this.

[E1pix]

I'm torn, and here's why...

 

First, I strongly believe TNF is a hurting unit that will only get weaker as members age. I also like the fact that TNFers tend to be far more diplomatic, as in more "mature," if you will.

 

IMHO, RC is a snake pit of insults, forced misinterpretations, etc., and I for one can barely stand it there.

 

My point about that is to say, sending TNFers to RC will potentially offend and lose TNFers while diverting their attention further away from the struggling TNF. With that, I'm just going to ask… is that a plan to eliminate TNF sooner rather it dying all on its own later?

 

I have witnessed many, many times where lots of us are anxious to discuss more-current things in TNF that we don't for its nostalgic premise. The line of "too new" a topic is also vague, and I believe those factors both limit and further weaken TNF.

 

I've done lots of posts around here and would guess that less than 1% are on RC. That is deliberate, if not calculated. I've left these Forums a few times now for occasional lack of restraints by some posters, first for those treating it like a private club newbies hadn't a key for, and later when issues were too slowly tended to. But I love it here overall, and have made many friends both real and virtual, so I do what I can on my end to mitigate getting so miffed as to bail out… like dozens of others have done, and then later shared their stories with me.

 

Overall, I like the idea… but my vote would be to integrate this new sub-forum under TNF — to expand it, re-strengthen it, and keep its greater civility just as it is. That way we can discuss both a current, multi-generational driver, and the familial predecessors before him… as one example.

 

Thank You for asking us, Richard. 

 

I'd love to name it, and design the logo.  

[Michael Ferner]

Bad idea. Creating the motor cycle and "serious history" subforums has, in my opinion at least, weakened the overall attraction of TNF. Both the subforums are close to clinically dead today, and the main forum is on life support - whether that's because or despite the creation of the subforums is a moot point, perhaps. But creating another diversion will hardly help it recover.

[Eric Dunsdon]

Not for me thank you. It sounds like that other Forum on which blokes argue about their holiday venues, respective road cars and what they did at the weekend!.

[Allan Lupton]

As one who has never needed to look at the RC forum, never mind wished to post there, I wouldn't need to look at a "recent history" sub-section either.

History does, of course, begin now and to an extent TNF caters for that, as there are plenty of threads about the current use of out of date vehicles and the infamous "list" threads which try to compare past events or people with current ditto. What's being suggested won't get those threads out of our way, so who can say if it would help anything else.

[uechtel]

Supporting a 'liberal' opinion in regards to the internet and to fourms in particular, I mostly agree to the opinions already posted here. We are a quite small community and should not split up more than absolutely necessary. Thus, I still 'suffer' from the introduction of the historical research subforum, which in my opinion did not gain anything but complexity (especially to the search function) and may be also a factor to disencourage 'novices' (like 'you are not serious historian enough to take part in this exclusive club'). And looking at the existing topics I still can not recognize clear criteria, what falls under 'proper' historical research and what is only good enough for the 'common' TNF. To add yet another subforum in my opinion does not improve anything, I am afraid we just get more fruitless discussions about what is correctly to be posted in which subforum.

 

I also can not quite understand people complaining about threads that they think do not belong to TNF. If I notice a certain topic that seems to 'fluffy' to me I just do not watch it and concentrate on the interesting threads instead.

Edited by uechtel, 25 January 2018 - 09:13.

[ensign14]

I like the idea of some history in the RC.  Not least to help with a greater appreciation of history.  E.g. when it comes to discussing greatest drivers and so on there may be many who have never heard of Nuvolari or Caracciola, let alone Louie Meyer.  The idea would be to encourage modern day fans to come over to TNF - but sometimes quite promising "fluff" threads in RC move to TNF and then die as it's old ground.  So before the wrong audience.

[Collombin]

The only new subforum I would support would be one for Australian racing, a topic with many ongoing threads that might be best suited to their own separate section. For those interested in Australian racing, great. For those not interested, also great.

[B Squared]

I like the idea of some history in the RC.

I do my best in IndyCar threads if the opportunity arises, as do quite a few others that are following this series.

edit: for those who never go to the RC side - they have the same question over there regarding this sub-forum, posted by Risil.

Edited by B Squared, 25 January 2018 - 10:54.

[DCapps]

Bad idea. Creating the motor cycle and "serious history" subforums has, in my opinion at least, weakened the overall attraction of TNF. Both the subforums are close to clinically dead today, and the main forum is on life support - whether that's because or despite the creation of the subforums is a moot point, perhaps. But creating another diversion will hardly help it recover.

 

It would be an understatement to suggest that I have had a very rocky relationship with TNF.

 

TNF owes its very existence to what was then known as the "Readers' Comments" forum, more commonly referred to as "Ranting Comments" and more than somewhat adverse to wimpy things such as history, context, and those sorts of things.

 

Although I certainly backed David when he created the "Historical Research Forum," I also accepted that it was a less than perfect solution to an issue that was not going to go away regarding the declining membership and participation on TNF.

 

From the very outset on Day One, TNF has been at best a very shaky compromise of competing interests, ideas, and notions as to just what I was supposed to be.

 

Bira had her ideas regarding the forum and I definitely had mine, and it went from there into any number of other permutations over the years.

 

I have always maintained that TNF was very likely a finite affair, not a potentially infinite one such as the RC simply because whether it is called history or nostalgia, there is only so much interest in the topic, with even less interest as how we discuss things evolves (re: social media).

 

Another sub-forum, especially one entitled "Recent History," something of a non sequitur if you think about it, would simply be another nail in the coffin lid that already has a number of nails pounded in it.

 

That said, there is a certain parental pride or angst or anger or determination or something that convinces me that there is life yet in the forum, as in dum spiro spero.

 

I think that the forum is in very good hands with the current moderation team; I also think that it is safe to suggest that, as usual and with only the rarest of occasions, those at Autosport could not care one iota about whether TNF lives or dies, assuming that they realize it even exists, which is doubtful.

 

While I have no doubts that my personal clock is ticking down (I am at the age where the awareness of one's mortality is unavoidable, especially given a near-fatal heart attack and the awareness that one's luck only goes so far), I am continuing to fight the good fight for bringing more attention to motor sport history as, well, "real" history and worthy of attention by those within academe as well as encouraging "enthusiast historians" & Independent Scholars/Researchers to step up their game (per Carl Becker) -- and thereby metaphorically poke the academics in the eye.

 

I would strongly recommend not adding the proposed new sub-forum.

 

At the same time, I would suggest a rethink of the forum overall; I am happy to share the fruits of my research with others, finding the Historical Research sub-forum very useful for that purpose, but for a variety of reasons I tend to not be all that interested in most of the topics on the main part of forum. That said, people seem to be quite happy there and that is very important.

 

As an aside, I think that a similar forum elsewhere (http://www.trackforu...104-s-Nostalgia) might be facing its fate in the not so distant future...

[Rob Ryder]

I'm a great believer in of it ain't broke don't fix it.

The only problem I see with TNF is that is needs a few of the old faces to return, and maybe a blood transfusion of new members.

A new sub-forum gets a no from me, sorry.

Maybe time would be better spent 'undoing' the problems we have all suffered since the last software upgrade?

Rob

[group7]

Well said by  DCapps.... E1pix and Rob Ryder     

 

Michael

[Vitesse2]

Gut instinct is no.

 

Everything that is suggested for discussion in this post should go in the Nostalgia Forum.

 

If it's not current, it's nostalgia.

 

Doing so helps keep "nostalgia" alive and keeps the forum busy enough to be interesting.

 

Multiple splinter forums tend to kill things.

You've actually more or less pinpointed the reason this is being proposed.

 

BRG mentions a 'silo mentality' and that is pretty much the reason these things don't get discussed in TNF. We're aware of that - and also of how TNF is perceived from 'outside the silo'. Rightly or wrongly it's seen as elitist and unwelcoming.

 

And I'm sorry to say that some people's responses have already absolutely - and amply - demonstrated that.

 

I'm torn, and here's why...

 

First, I strongly believe TNF is a hurting unit that will only get weaker as members age. I also like the fact that TNFers tend to be far more diplomatic, as in more "mature," if you will.

 

IMHO, RC is a snake pit of insults, forced misinterpretations, etc., and I for one can barely stand it there.

 

My point about that is to say, sending TNFers to RC will potentially offend and lose TNFers while diverting their attention further away from the struggling TNF. With that, I'm just going to ask… is that a plan to eliminate TNF sooner rather it dying all on its own later?

 

I have witnessed many, many times where lots of us are anxious to discuss more-current things in TNF that we don't for its nostalgic premise. The line of "too new" a topic is also vague, and I believe those factors both limit and further weaken TNF.

 

I've done lots of posts around here and would guess that less than 1% are on RC. That is deliberate, if not calculated. I've left these Forums a few times now for occasional lack of restraints by some posters, first for those treating it like a private club newbies hadn't a key for, and later when issues were too slowly tended to. But I love it here overall, and have made many friends both real and virtual, so I do what I can on my end to mitigate getting so miffed as to bail out… like dozens of others have done, and then later shared their stories with me.

 

Overall, I like the idea… but my vote would be to integrate this new sub-forum under TNF — to expand it, re-strengthen it, and keep its greater civility just as it is. That way we can discuss both a current, multi-generational driver, and the familial predecessors before him… as one example.

 

Thank You for asking us, Richard. 

 

I'd love to name it, and design the logo.  

We didn't propose this lightly. We too recognise that we are losing long-established and valuable members; some are just walking away, others are being taken from us by Old Father Time. And as I've said before, TNF has been a victim of its own success - it was one of the first motor sport history fora and in its early years acted as a magnet and meeting place for people from around the world, but as an English-language site it was inevitable that people whose first language wasn't English - and/or whose national interests weren't adequately covered - would eventually combine to set up similar groups, often in other languages. People only have a limited amount of time to devote to their hobbies.

 

There was also a major mistake made when the previous software was introduced and the whole forum - RC as well - became invisible to Google. That happened just at the time when Facebook groups were taking off ...

 

That, however, is history.

 

We did discuss the possibility of this being a subforum of TNF, but that 'silo mentality' was identified as one of the barriers to getting any participation from RC members.

 

I like the idea of some history in the RC.  Not least to help with a greater appreciation of history.  E.g. when it comes to discussing greatest drivers and so on there may be many who have never heard of Nuvolari or Caracciola, let alone Louie Meyer.  The idea would be to encourage modern day fans to come over to TNF - but sometimes quite promising "fluff" threads in RC move to TNF and then die as it's old ground.  So before the wrong audience.

That's pretty much the concept - a sort of 'TNF lite'. A gentle introduction to history, which may lead people to want to know more. When I first got into motor sport history as a teenager I devoured everything I could find - and there wasn't much to find! Today we have fans whose knowledge and/or experience of motor sport might start with Michael Schumacher, Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton or even Max Verstappen. Being brutally honest - ask yourselves whether or not TNF caters for them? And if not - why not?

 

Bad idea. Creating the motor cycle and "serious history" subforums has, in my opinion at least, weakened the overall attraction of TNF. Both the subforums are close to clinically dead today, and the main forum is on life support - whether that's because or despite the creation of the subforums is a moot point, perhaps. But creating another diversion will hardly help it recover.

 

Supporting a 'liberal' opinion in regards to the internet and to fourms in particular, I mostly agree to the opinions already posted here. We are a quite small community and should not split up more than absolutely necessary. Thus, I still 'suffer' from the introduction of the historical research subforum, which in my opinion did not gain anything but complexity (especially to the search function) and may be also a factor to disencourage 'novices' (like 'you are not serious historian enough to take part in this exclusive club'). And looking at the existing topics I still can not recognize clear criteria, what falls under 'proper' historical research and what is only good enough for the 'common' TNF. To add yet another subforum in my opinion does not improve anything, I am afraid we just get more fruitless discussions about what is correctly to be posted in which subforum..

 

I've thought long and hard about perhaps returning to a single forum format for TNF and/or reducing the number of sub-fora. Nothing is set in stone, but that's a discussion for another day.

 

I also can not quite understand people complaining about threads that they think do not belong to TNF. If I notice a certain topic that seems to 'fluffy' to me I just do not watch it and concentrate on the interesting threads instead.

Me neither.

[E1pix]

Thanks for the input, Richard.

Part of my thinking was not enraging the mellower TNF with feisty RCers. So perhaps having the new sub-Forum under that blanket is the only way to do this -- provided it doesn't dwindle participation here..

Thanks.

[pacificquay]

The key is that current issues and history should be seen as two wings of the same forum.

For the average user these should appear as two parts of what is to them the Autosport forum.

It is depressing many regard TNF and RC as completely separate operations and often the fact they are hosted by Autosport seems merely incidental.

[ensign14]

That's pretty much the concept - a sort of 'TNF lite'. A gentle introduction to history, which may lead people to want to know more. When I first got into motor sport history as a teenager I devoured everything I could find - and there wasn't much to find! Today we have fans whose knowledge and/or experience of motor sport might start with Michael Schumacher, Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton or even Max Verstappen. Being brutally honest - ask yourselves whether or not TNF caters for them? And if not - why not?

 

That's why I'd leave it in RC.  It's like music.  You have to pretty much thrust it in front of people for them to catch on.  Hence the X Factor model.  With no other music programmes the only thing the casual audience hears is the utter drek that that travesty foists on them on prime time television every Saturday night. 

 

If you want better music, you need more outlets for it. 

 

So, to get people interested in the history, you have to throw in a reference to Caracciola when someone asks whether Schumacher or Vettel is the best German driver ever...

[E1pix]

It is depressing many regard TNF and RC as completely separate operations and often the fact they are hosted by Autosport seems merely incidental.

Not sure depression is necessary, but they are extremely different in many user attitudes.

[PRD]

The problem is essentially that too many people on TNF are stuck in the "good old days" of when they were youngsters and deprecate anything new, so we get the sarcastic remarks about current F1 and the thinly veiled dislike of current drivers. The right crowd and no crowding attitude.

 

This means that new blood is not made welcome. Add to that the general grumpiness and its no wonder the forum is dying on its feet

 

Personally, I'd welcome new blood and new ideas and if Richard and the other mods think the best way to encourage it is a sub-forum then that's fine by me. But its a pity that its come to this

[GMiranda]

I think we should look into TNF and see what's wrong, why the activity is decreasing, how to attract new people to it, etc...

To mix actual racing with the past will be a confusion. What we really need here is better image support and divulgation on social networks to bring new people to the forum, without spoiling it.

[bill p]

The only new subforum I would support would be one for Australian racing, a topic with many ongoing threads that might be best suited to their own separate section. For those interested in Australian racing, great. For those not interested, also great.

+1

[bill p]

I think we should look into TNF and see what's wrong, why the activity is decreasing, how to attract new people to it, etc....

O/T
I used to post more often with photographs from days gone by and Goodwood Revival for discussion - due to changes at Imageshack and Photobucket I've given up. Can anyone suggest a photo hosting website that I can now use?

Bill P

[opplock]

The only new subforum I would support would be one for Australian racing, a topic with many ongoing threads that might be best suited to their own separate section. For those interested in Australian racing, great. For those not interested, also great.

 

I will always associate Australians with underarm bowling but am nevertheless a regular reader of the Australian racing threads. I think you'll find there is a lot of interest especially in the UK due to the impact that Australasians had on motor racing from 50s to 70s. 

 

The problem with calling something recent history is that it will quickly lose that status. Will threads then be moved to TNF? It is 20 years since Mika Hakkinen won his first World Championship. Recent history to someone my age but prehistory to a teenager. Although being old enough to have seen Phil Hill race a Cooper (1965 Tasman) I'd suggest TNF is now or soon will be a suitable forum for discussion of his career.  

[GMiranda]

I will always associate Australians with underarm bowling but am nevertheless a regular reader of the Australian racing threads. I think you'll find there is a lot of interest especially in the UK due to the impact that Australasians had on motor racing from 50s to 70s. 

 

The problem with calling something recent history is that it will quickly lose that status. Will threads then be moved to TNF? It is 20 years since Mika Hakkinen won his first World Championship. Recent history to someone my age but prehistory to a teenager. Although being old enough to have seen Phil Hill race a Cooper (1965 Tasman) I'd suggest TNF is now or soon will be a suitable forum for discussion of his career.  

This is anotehr interesting question.... Some threads aren't  current racing anymore, nor fanmade discussions.

[guiporsche]

Myself I'm a recent participant in TNF, in my early 30s (so far from being an 'old fart' obsessed with the good ole times, etc etc) and I don't think there's a need for another sub-forum, just as there is no need for the Historical Research sub-forum. It would just further complicate things.

 

While I understand the moderators' idea, the inherent flaw is that there's, IMO, a presupposition that people interested in more modern racing are really interested in the historical side of things. That would be the usual posters at Racing Comments. The problem is that if there's anything that characterises RC, is not only the nasty behaviour but the abolute uninterest for matters of context, bibliographical research, etc. It's usual at RC for someone to post a logical, well-informed opinion and get completely ignored by people repeating lies, often dressed in very unpolite terms.

 

At RC, it seems that history is used to settle fanboy questions/debates. What characterises TNF, instead, is that people actually make an effort to get things right, to share research, to provide advice on books and magazines. There's nothing there that prevents people asking about more modern, recent history, and you often see comments from people like Simon Arron, Peter Elleray and Nigel Beresford.

Besides, there's a reason why most topics cover topics from many decades ago: there's simple a dearth of good books and reliable info on modern racing. Most of what's out, is really superficial. There are little autobiographies with real insight or detailed stories of teams' inner workings, etc. Books like Newey's bio, Ross Brawn's or Priestley's are still rare. 

Still, perhaps rather than creating another subforum a simple solution would be to change the TNF name to 'TNF (1890-2008)' or 'TNF (1890-2016)'.

 

P.S. And yes, some people at TNF can be extremely grumpy sometimes - because they have been following motorsports for a long time, got all the nice books when they were released and observe youngsters' enthusiams with a bit of cynicism. 

However, the point is that those people are actually the minority. If you step in politely (like you'll do in normal life away from a computer), do a bit of googling before asking obvious or ridiculous questions, then you'll find out that most users are actually very nice and helpful.

Edited by guiporsche, 26 January 2018 - 16:17.

[RS2000]

I agree that Historical Research is not required, leave alone any new sub forum. Add up all the time taken up with checking more than one list of threads each day when you are subjected to abominably slow internet connections and it becomes scary as to how much of ones remaining life is consumed. Checking one list quickly for anything new that might be of potential interest is how it used to be and should be again.

[jtremlett]

Whilst I can see the sentiment, in my experience, such as it is, a sub-forum is only ever a good idea when you have too much traffic and can't see the wood for the trees.  I have never seen it generate more input.  So I am with those above who think it would be a mistake.

 

Jonathan

[DCapps]

I agree that Historical Research is not required, leave alone any new sub forum.

 

Actually, Historical Research is the only aspect that still really interests me, of course. But, I can definitely see where others could care less about it and would not miss it if it vanished into the ether or simply faded away. Since I do realize that I am an outlier and an anomaly, I fully accept that what most here want for TNF should carry the day and that is absolutely fine with me.

 

After reading the comments here and on the RC, I think that the moderators will make a well-considered decision and we will move on.

[RS2000]

It's largely the only aspect that interests me too. The problem is it is still necessary to check the rest of TNF because many posts that are historical research and of interest are not made there. There seems not enough overall traffic to warrant separate sections and sub forums that have to be clicked on - and then awaited for time that can be mind numbingly long for those unable to access the 21st century in internet speeds. Scrolling past the fluff is quicker.

[retriever]

Fewer sub-forums the better. Example the book thread - a month or more can go by without an entry made yet on the main forum numerous postings on book topics such as the Phil Hill book(s), especially if a book is being promoted.

[Jack-the-Lad]

No, for many of the reasons already stated. No point in repeating them.

[pacificquay]

The problem is essentially that too many people on TNF are stuck in the "good old days" of when they were youngsters and deprecate anything new, so we get the sarcastic remarks about current F1 and the thinly veiled dislike of current drivers. The right crowd and no crowding attitude.
 
This means that new blood is not made welcome. Add to that the general grumpiness and its no wonder the forum is dying on its feet
 
Personally, I'd welcome new blood and new ideas and if Richard and the other mods think the best way to encourage it is a sub-forum then that's fine by me. But its a pity that its come to this

I tend to think the sub forum would kill TNF rather than encourage it as a significant volume of its potential content and thus traffic would disappear.

More promotion of TNF and its threads on RC would help.

[Richard Jenkins]

The only new subforum I would support would be one for Australian racing, a topic with many ongoing threads that might be best suited to their own separate section. For those interested in Australian racing, great. For those not interested, also great.

Massive yes to this if there has to be a sub-forum at all.
Many good points made already. As both a TNF veteran (18 years) and a future TNFr for some time (God willing as I'm 39), I'd like to see the following;
Merge ALL the subfora together. There's so much good stuff I miss at the time. Also plays havoc with the search function.
Agree with greater promotion of TNF both on Autosports pages and allowing the forum to appear on Google searches. That's why so many people aren't discovering it. Lets focus on that.
I'm in the camp that recent history is nostalgia and whilst I wouldn't necessarily start a thread, I would read it... much as iI would one on Nuvolari or Harroun.
I class myself as a researcher with what I do with ORC and although that role evolves, I don't necessarily migrate to the Research sub-forum. Much as I dearly loved David and all he stood for and as much as I've worked on research for 20 odd years.. I don't feel worthy of the Research sub-forum. And if I don't, newbies probably won't to. That's why I would like collectibles, motorcycling, research, fluff and even Australian racing all together in one great big melting pot; integration not separation.

[Michael Ferner]

Reading through some posts in the "sister thread", I get the feeling that the motive is to create a forum where posters can write about non-current events "RC-style", because:

a) the forum admins want to keep RC about current matters only, and
b) many posters in RC want to post about non-current events, but don't like it around here (TNF)

I really couldn't care less about "recent history" (because I stopped following the sport long ago), or about a forum where history (recent or otherwise) is discussed "RC-style", but I wonder what it would do with TNF. I don't think it would help at all to recruit new blood for TNF because, as guiporsche has correctly observed in his excellent post: "At RC, it seems that history is used to settle fanboy questions/debates." I generally don't like to talk in terms of them'n'us, but to me it's obvious that they don't want to blend into TNF, and that we don't want that, either. So, at the end of the day you'll have two history forums to chose from when you join Autosport in the future, and I really don't see how that is going to help TNF. So, I guess it's about time you admins start explaining why a) is so important to you, because frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me, but I feel it will be the beginning of the end for TNF.

[Vitesse2]

Michael, 'them and us' applies from both sides. These are quotes from two moderators (anonymous, to protect the innocent!), taken from our preliminary discussion:

 

I am exploring the idea of an intermediate forum because I think it's potentially a good 'gateway' drug to our other forums. I have shown the forums to friends of mine who are funny and clever and they've said stuff along the lines of 'I don't know where to start' and one explicitly did ask where's the Mansell chat. It's to try and answer whether these conversations that could happen in TNF don't happen because the level of knowledge is intimidating to newbies or whether people really aren't interested and the talk doesn't happen because it's all been said.

 

More recent history ... doesn't feel like it has a home. In RC I've noticed there are regularly people who want to talk about the recent past (say Rosberg v Hamilton last year, Alonso v Hamilton 2007, or Webber v Vettel in 2010) but don't really have a place to do that. So it pops up in regular threads and can derail the discussion in there. I'm not sure people have clarity in RC about how far back in time they can go when initiating discussion/a new thread. Perhaps they feel that anything that isn't from the last few years belongs in TNF, but then when they go there it's really much older motorsport history, and yes, quite stuffy. The advantage of the subforum XXXXX suggests is that it might make clear that anything newer than that is fair game for new threads in RC. 

 

Browsing PlanetF1's forum, for example, there is a rich mix of topics from the recent past ("Silverstone 1998", "Williams' best driver 1996-present", "Ferrari 2008 vs Ferrari 2017 which was the bigger screw up?", "Spa 2008 Revisited", "Schumacher / Raikkonen / Massa Ferrari Switcheroo 2007", "F1 Flashbacks: 2009 Belgian Grand Prix") mixed in with the current news threads. Are we stifling this with the current forum delineation, as I don't feel we see these sorts of topics as routinely in RC?

The comments we've had back so far have stimulated further discussion, but despite what seem to be the suspicions of some there is absolutely no intention of either closing or fundamentally changing the remit of TNF. However, we do have to recognise that since this BB opened nearly 20 years ago it has to react to circumstances - we cannot preserve it in aspic and if anything these proposals are more of an upheaval to RC's remit and scope than to TNF's. RC's description is after all 'The place for debates on the current affairs of Formula 1, rallying, MotoGP, NASCAR, V8, Indycar, and all other forms of motorsport.' [my emphasis]

 

And another quote from the first of those two moderators:

 

... my biggest concern is that TNF don't feel I'm nicking their sandwiches.

It's a difficult balancing act. And the more people line up as 'us and them' the more difficult it becomes.

[opplock]

The current number of replies to the Recent History threads are TNF 37, RC 12. Does that suggest limited interest among those posting in RC? I notice that a Senna vs Schumacher thread started today on TNF. There are no obviously grumpy or unwelcoming replies so far. I don't recognise some of those posting as TNF regulars so it seems people are prepared to venture over here.    

[E1pix]

Excellent points in many posts above.

One that stands out is re-integrating the Research sub-forum back into TNF, for two reasons coming to mind:

1). I personally get an unwelcoming sense there, in terms of "If you're not a real researcher, you know nothing."

2). I also think many of us often log in to find few new posts on TNF at all. When this happens on, say a Saturday morning as I've noticed, it feels like it's dying — and if that is felt by a new or newer reader or poster, I wonder how many leave and think "What's the point?"

Perhaps contrary to my first post above, with more thought and reading of others' comments, it seems the easiest answer is to have both TNF and Research in one forum again so at least there's more activity. Whether perceived, or real, there'd be more reasons to stay — in both the short term, and the long.

That said, knowing David a bit through PMs and emails, it'd be great to continue honoring his memory in some way, as I'd suggested on behalf of our departed friend David Beard in The Photographer's Thread.

Overall, however, the best thing we can all do to keep TNF strong is getting along better, and sometimes that includes cutting slack to those knowing less than we think we do. Keeping new posters around seems evermore critical, particularly the enthusiastic and younger ones.

Edited by E1pix, 27 January 2018 - 22:55.

[D-Type]

Someone said above that TNF has been going for about 20 years - and therein lies the problem:
(1)  There are only a finite number of major (and minor) historical questions that need discussion:  eg the 1932 Mille Miglia
(2)  There are some who are reluctant to discuss topics that have been previously discussed although there may be different people with different opinions and fresh knowledge
(3)  The difficult to use and hit-and-miss "Search" function which exacerbates problem (2)
(4)  The rise of social media such as Facebook groups that add immediacy, albeit at the expense of accuracy
(5)  The difficulty posting photographs
(6)  Everybody is 20 years older and we don't seem to be attracting new, or younger, members.  And I must agree that the "Grumpy old farts" image is, shall we say, not undeserved.

I can see no problem with a new subforum - it's a great idea.  But rather than being a subforum of Racing Comments or of TNF why not persuade Autosport to introduce a new main forum titled, say, "Recent History - the last 20-25 years" and provide links from stickies on both its 'parent' forums.

Keep the Historical Research subforum but make it more inclusive, encouraging the less knowledgeable to ask genuine history questions, ie factual and not opinion.  And ensure that they get courteous replies.

 

[DCapps]

 

1). I personally get an unwelcoming sense there, in terms of "If you're not a real researcher, you know nothing."

 

Given that the number of "real researchers" in the field of motor sport history worldwide would probably scarcely be enough to fill somewhere between a large, luxury SUV and a 15-passenger van, this is far more of a perception than a reality, which still does not by any measure provide an excuse that such a perception exists, of course.

 

The cold, hard reality is that the number of people conducting "real" scholarly research into the history of motor sport is truly minuscule; adding those also conducting what can be considered as "serious" research into the topic as "enthusiast historians" -- who do some incredible work, by the way, with many being warranted by the quality of their work by being better thought of as Independent Researchers/Scholars (or whatever the current term that is in vogue at the moment) and certainly earning the high praise they are due -- scarcely swells the ranks by very much, maybe to the point of filling most of a tour bus.

 

These are the international, worldwide numbers, not those in working in one part of the world or another.

 

I think that I am/have been aware of probably the vast majority of those in the field over the past two decades and the ranks seem to be slowly dwindling given that, alas, the recruitment to loss ratio is not what it could or should be.

 

Should the moderation team(s) decide that the Historical Research sub-forum needs to be folded back into the main forum, so be it, and I will support that decision or whatever decision that they make.

 

Life goes on.

[PayasYouRace]

The current number of replies to the Recent History threads are TNF 37, RC 12. Does that suggest limited interest among those posting in RC? I notice that a Senna vs Schumacher thread started today on TNF. There are no obviously grumpy or unwelcoming replies so far. I don't recognise some of those posting as TNF regulars so it seems people are prepared to venture over here.

Going by much of the replies, I’d say it’s more that RC has fewer objections.

[Bob Riebe]

As I put in the thread dedicated to this at RC, Racing Comments does not say Recent Competition, it says Racing Comments. One should be able to comment on anything racing in Racing Comments.

More and more categories means less and less variety on a site and less and less people commenting. It turns into a good old boys club for those who like to write most often.

Nostalgia has turned into Euro dominated area but that is fine as those are the people who like to write.

I did not even know the HIstorical thread existed till I looked at Recent Topics one day and saw something that intrigued me but could not find it in the Nostalgia thread so I clicked on it and looked at the top to see that thread it was in.

 

Track Forum is has all kinds of threads now but little worth looking at in a lot of them so I did not even look at it for well over a  year and see little reason to go back.

The "Most Beautiful" threads in RC has drawn all kinds of traffic and few if any complaints, It made a rather dead area  that had become mostly F1 chatter worth looking at again.

Change for the sake of change is usually a bad idea.

[PayasYouRace]

Actually, RC explicitly states “for current affairs” in its description.

[Vitesse2]

.... if anything these proposals are more of an upheaval to RC's remit and scope than to TNF's. RC's description is after all 'The place for debates on the current affairs of Formula 1, rallying, MotoGP, NASCAR, V8, Indycar, and all other forms of motorsport.' [my emphasis]

[Bob Riebe]

Actually, RC explicitly states “for current affairs” in its description.

You are correct, I have never read those fine prints before BUT having read them, if you read the description of the tech.forum, a large number of the posts in RC would then belong in the Tech. forum.

[DCapps]

I am sensing that there seems to be some thought (maybe even serious thought) being given to the reintegration of TNF into the RC, which is where this is all heading whether anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not, much less even realize it in any case.

 

I do not think that any on the moderation team might think that at the moment, but that is the logical conclusion for where this sort of discussion should begin to lead.

 

It may not be in the immediate future, but the seed for such a thing is now being planted, knowingly, willingly or not, and once planted, well...

 

As one half of the those responsible for the creation of TNF in the first place, I know all too well what led to TNF being created.

 

With the general perception of TNF in its present form clearly being that its days are numbered for any number of reasons, we seem to be coming full circle, only with TNF now being perceived as the recalcitrant forum rather than the RC.

 

Ah, the irony...

 

Life goes on.

[pacificquay]

Just today it was suggested a thread about Senna may belong in “recent history” - despite his death being 24 years ago.

When the forum was formed in 1998 I can’t imagine any suggesting a discussion about events in 1974 would be “recent”

[Vitesse2]

I am sensing that there seems to be some thought (maybe even serious thought) being given to the reintegration of TNF into the RC, which is where this is all heading whether anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not, much less even realize it in any case.

 

I do not think that any on the moderation team might think that at the moment, but that is the logical conclusion for where this sort of discussion should begin to lead.

 

It may not be in the immediate future, but the seed for such a thing is now being planted, knowingly, willingly or not, and once planted, well...

 

As one half of the those responsible for the creation of TNF in the first place, I know all too well what led to TNF being created.

 

With the general perception of TNF in its present form clearly being that its days are numbered for any number of reasons, we seem to be coming full circle, only with TNF now being perceived as the recalcitrant forum rather than the RC.

 

Ah, the irony...

 

Life goes on.

Life does indeed go on.

 

And things change. This is no longer - except in spirit - the forum created by Paul Kaizar and Biranit Goren. It may be bigger and more corporate, but the forum is still autonomous. And it is seen by the owners as an asset, which can be grown. So much so that - for almost the first time - articles on the main website are now being linked into the BB. Under Haymarket, both Autosport and the BB were pretty much left to wither on the vine. But for the first time since Bira left, the owners are now coming to the BB mods asking for suggestions about how things can be improved.

 

There is not one scintilla of doubt in my mind that TNF will continue as a separate forum. But the world has moved on in the last 20 years and this BB has been guilty - not just in TNF - of not moving with it. That has to change. Change can sometimes be uncomfortable or unsettling. Even scary. But change we must.

 

Don's original concept for this section of the forums was a History Forum. That - as far as I and the rest of the moderation team are concerned - remains the concept at which we are aiming. How we get to that is another matter, but as I've said above, the comments we've had so far have led to further discussions within the team - not only about this one issue, but the future shape of the whole BB. The original idea is evolving, but we were fully aware from the start of this exercise that the $64000 Question was 'what is recent history?' Sporting history isn't like political history - you can't draw lines in the sand and say 'it starts here and finishes over there.' In the history of our sport there are only two such lines you can draw - in 1918 and 1945. And even those have fuzzy edges.

[retriever]

what's the BB?