textgoeshere

Aggregation over RSS makes it easy for people to collaborate in ad hoc ways. So what’s the role of groups (forums, online networks, bulletin boards)? Do they even have one?

Simon Berry of Ruralnet raises this question when he asks, “Are tags the new groups?” A provocative question. (Hat-tip Megan)

Subscribe, don’t join?

Here’s how I understand their argument: there’s always a barrier to entry for new members to a group. You have to sign up and login at least. The Tag/feed/comment approach reduces that barrier to entry. If you’re interested in something, subscribe to the relevant tags. It’s easier to subscribe than it is to join.

You can keep in touch with who you want, how you want. So dynamic and informal communities of interest can shoot up and bloom spontaneously and there’s no need for groups.

Love forums, love tumbleweed?

Moreover, in my experience, forums have serious brand issues. They don’t excite people (funders, and therefore people commissioning websites). They’re low margin for web development shops.

Also too many organisations have created forums and attracted nothing but tumbleweed.

So noone wants to buy them, noone wants to sell them.

Forums still flourish

Clearly, though, forums are not dead. Not even a little bit.

All the largest w2 properties have burgeoning groups: Facebook groups; Google groups; Flickr groups.

Indeed, w2 sites like Reddit and Digg are forums. People sign up and make posts, or reply to posts, in topics. 99% of activity happens at the website itself.

Services like Disqus wrap forum-like behaviour around the tag/feed/comment. Disqus – or something similar – is going to be very big.

Beyond that there are millions of groups thriving: from Mumsnet to BRFCS to LRUG, sorry El Rug.

Groups aren’t going to disappear, so tags cannot be the new groups.

Forums are familiar and simple

More people are familiar with forums and groups than tag/feed/comment. It’s a proven and well-understood pattern.

It’s also easier to track one forum than an evolving bundle of tags. You have to constantly evaluate the relevance of your chosen tags. The signal-to-noise ratio of your tags might change very quickly. In short, you must manage information actively.

Never send a robot to do a human’s work

On the other hand, forums provide – or should provide – clarity and simplicity. But that clarity and simplicity depends on the editor and moderators investing substantial amounts of time.

Forums – communities – must be nurtured and managed by human editors and moderators. That requires patience and investment. Relying on tag/feed/comment devolves that effort to individual consumers (the people reading and contributing). Would that be another reason forums have fallen out of favour?

Why some forums work, and some fail

The real questions for me are:

• How do you predict whether a forum will succeed or fail?
• When should you provide forums?
• How do you integrate the tag/feed/comment model with forums/membership?

So now I’ve some ideas for another post.