Since we're on this "retitle the Forums" thing...

[chiliD]

Just a suggestion from seeing how the Allman Bros site is set up:

They have individual forums for each CURRENT member under "Allman Bros Band" so a forum heading of current Fleetwood Mac would have separate forums for Mick Fleetwood, John McVie, Stevie Nicks & Lindsey Buckingham, then under separate headings they have past members split between "Historical Members" (which in Fleetwood Mac's case, would be separate forums for each of: Peter Green, Danny Kirwan, Jeremy Spencer, Bob Welch, Christine McVie, Billy Burnette & Rick Vito), then "Other Past Members" (which, again, in Fleetwood Mac's case would include forums for: Bob Brunning, Dave Walker, Bob Weston, Dave Mason, Bekka Bramlett and a catch-all "Others" which would include the additional add-on folks like: Doug Graves, Bobby Hunt, Neale Haywood, Brett Tuggle, Asante, Taku, Lenny Castro, Lori Perry-Nicks, Sharon Celani & the other girls who've toured with Fleetwood Mac)

Set up that way, there's less bickering over certain incarnations of the band and each member (in the Allman Bros case, there've been 19...3 more than Fleetwood Mac) gets their props.

[michelej1]

But retitling something is a lot different than adding forums, as far as the database structure goes.

Michele

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

But retitling something is a lot different than adding forums, as far as the database structure goes.

Michele

Yeah, I totally get that.

Since the Allman Bros were the closest to having a fairly similar number of band members all-time (plus the fact that I frequent that forum quite a bit, as well), I used them as the comparison.

It would certainly be a whole lot different had Savoy Brown or Jethro Tull been the comparison! Yee, gads, have they been through the members or WHAT!?

[louielouie2000]

Not that my opinion counts, but I personally like having fewer forums. More cr0ss-pollinating discussion, greater information exchange, more opportunities for fan knowledge growth, etc. If anything, I kinda wish we only have 1 Fleetwood Mac forum, but still retained the seperate solo album forums. I understand why Fleetwood Mac is broken up into 3 different eras here, but I still think it would probably benefit everyone if they were all combined. It's likely folks would be more encouraged to look outside of the Rumours box, and I think discussions would be more complex. Just my two cents, when adjusted for inflation, aren't worth anything.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

Not that my opinion counts, but I personally like having fewer forums. More cr0ss-pollinating discussion, greater information exchange, more opportunities for fan knowledge growth, etc. If anything, I kinda wish we only have 1 Fleetwood Mac forum, but still retained the seperate solo album forums. I understand why Fleetwood Mac is broken up into 3 different eras here, but I still think it would probably benefit everyone if they were all combined. It's likely folks would be more encouraged to look outside of the Rumours box, and I think discussions would be more complex. Just my two cents, when adjusted for inflation, aren't worth anything.

I agree with you. I'm not actually advocating for change, but I like this idea a lot.

[wetcamelfood]

Viewership in some forums is probbaly very thin already so separating them even more would make some of them non-existent. I just assume have:

5 Fireflies (or well, really would be for MF, JM & CM since the SN & LB ones are fine on their own)
Non 5 Fireflies (3 Bobs, 2 Daves, Bekka, Billy, PG, JS, DK & RV)
SN
LB
Chit Chat
and this one we're positing in now.

Even then, the non firefiles viewership would no doubt still be less viewed than the others but that would be the most even in terms of viewership that we're going to get and let's face it, if, for example, some Greeny fans claim they have to weed through the rest of non fireflies to find the PG stuff.... Really? Not much sifting to do when his solo board only puts up 1 new thread each month or whatever it is (as does Post Rumours etc.) so please...

JMHO though.

John

[Dex]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

I agree with you. I'm not actually advocating for change, but I like this idea a lot.

I like the idea too, but I don't know if it'd go down well with the Early Years crowd, who I'm sure enjoy having a bit of a hideaway from us crazy chiffonheads.

The OP's idea is intriguing, but given the level of traffic this forum gets overall, I don't see it working. I've seen it happen on other steadily-slowing-down forums I've been a part of, where too many subforums leads to certain ones just getting completely ignored and the subject matter they are meant to cover just not being discussed at all because nobody bothers making a topic in a subforum nobody seems to visit. Which is sad.

I like the discussion here, but really, for the amount of traffic this site has, I think the forums have it about right at the moment. I like fewer forums too, but some separation is still warranted.

[becca]

But does the Allman's site have forums for The Allman Joys and The Hour Glass? I guess I'm more about organizing by time spans for some reason.

I think Bob Weston and Bob Brunning would have particularly slow forums, fascinating careers though both had.