Forums vs Threaded discussions June 27, 2004
Posted by Andy Roberts in : learning , trackbackForums vs Threaded discussions
terminology:
I use ‘Forums’ here in the modern specific sense to mean a particular type of online public discussion space where the entries are displayed together on one page rather than in separate windows. The vulgarised Latin plural doesn’t
bother me. ‘Threaded Discussions’ means presenting each post as an individual item, read sequentially through time rather than space e.g. email discussion lists, usenet newsgroups, FirstClass community ware.
Some experience is starting to suggest that when forums are used as opposed to threaded discussions, you get better quality conversations . Indeed, Stephen Powell seems to be sure of it. “The fragmented nature of FC conversations is in stark contrast to the rich flow of ideas possible where contributions are displayed sequentially on the same page…. ….The advantages are the ability to quickly scan up and down as one might when trying to understand a complex section in a book. This helps not just with reading and understanding, but also with the composing of contributions and replies. Indeed, this seems to be such an obvious difference that I wonder why anyone would through choice build software that didn’t have this facility!”
I’m going to try and answer that while my own preference is still somewhat undecided.
In response to Nancy White’s 1st question in the current ultraversity hotseat : “The use of Online community and interaction for discussion and debate - in other words, for learning! How do we do this well online?”
I wrote:
“I think discussion and debate work best in an online many-to-many asynchronous community space when respondents take the trouble to quote previous messages, interspersing their comments point for point amongst the separate strands of thought. In this way, a focussed conversation can be continued, thrashing out ideas though exposure to multiple peers as a continuing critical dialogue.”
Now that is a method which can, but often isn’t, used in email and newsgroup discussions - Firstclass included, but doesn’t apply in forums. I’ve seen lots of extremely good and bad examples of this method being employed over the years. In threaded discussions, you can choose which contribution you wish to reply to, and your reply will appear appended to it. This is done properly through a “references” header containing the message-ID of the message which is being replied to so that the software can automatically organise threads for you.
Typically people will choose to read threaded discussions in a number of ways.
1) They may “catch up” with a busy threaded discussion group by using a single key “display next unread message” function to read through all the new messages, thread by thread, composing replies as they go along. In practice, this can construct a convincing illusion of synchronicity - “I read something you appear to have just said, and I respond straight away”.
2) They may sort the group into date order and read through the latest messages in date order rather than by thread. This suits the “hungry” reader, anxious to keep in touch with the latest developments.
3) They may look back at the tree structure of a thread and dip in to individual messages at appropriate points, retracing the history of the discourse in order to establish who said what in response to whom, tracing the flow of ideas.
4) etc….
In a forum, on the other hand, the user normally has little or no flexibility over how the discourse can be presented.
Threaded discussions can, if necessary, cope well with long and deep exchanges of information ideas and opinion stretching into many hundreds of posts and over weeks or months of time. Whereas Forums bump into a ceiling quite early on.
The apparent success of the format employed for the hotseat ( a customised kind of form-driven forum ) could be attributed to a number of things ( The sense of occasion, Nancy’s specific skills in engagement, ennui in FC, use of photos? ) but the format itself must be a contributory factor, I would agree.
Advantages
of forums
* the ability to see a number of contributions while composing a reply.
* hardly any “Me too” or “thankyou” posts - more signal less noise.
* easy to read in retrospect, for people coming along later
Disadvantages of forums
* awkward for the people engaged in the discussion at at the time.
* no flexibility to suit readers preferences
* scrolling is a pain
* looking for new responses to older questions is a pain, so difficult to catch up
* no off-line reader ( for people who can’t be connected all the time for whatever reason, e.g. travel, other family members )
* later responses have to be posted further down, away from what they refer to.
* the format discourages extended conversations
What would I like to see?
Nested discussion forums are an improvement over flat ones, these allow you to attach your reply to any of the previous ones and then display it indented underneath instead of at the end of the thread. Because of screen space limitations, these normally only nest and indent up to 5 levels. These are particularly easy to follow for visitors reading back through an exiting discussion and not too bad for people in the throw of it.
The forum should also have an option to enable the reader to quickly view only the latest few posts in reverse date order.
And an option to subscribe via RSS and/or email
to complete the bridge, subscribers should be able to reply right there and then from their own preferred news / mail / RSS reader
Interim conclusions
tools do affect conversation
Forums occupy a sort of middle ground. They are better than bad threaded discussions, but not as good as good ones.
Horses for courses.
The discussion has only just begun.
8 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
is an online professional who initiated DARnet 
This is just a first response but I love the idea of being able to access and respond via my RSS reader. The ability to respond via NNW to comment on blogs is on the list of potential upgrades but I get the impression it is a way off.
I also wonder if the success of the current hoteat might be due more to Nancy than the tool. The Jenny Moon one was far less interesting even though the subject was just as relevent to the degree.
It still seems to me one way to find out would be to invite her into FC for a few days.
I thnk that you’re right about the difference in hotseats Linda. There is the difference in content (topic), the presenter, the responses. For me the key for what makes a ‘vibrant’ discussion, online or otherwise, is its ability to provoke. In the current hotseat, there is more to discuss than in Jenny’s, and so people are provoked into action.
When I read your comparison of forums and threaded conversations, Andy, I am struck by the fact that no one tool will suit all occasions. And maybe more pertinently, no one tool will suit one perosn on all occasions, What we need is some way of tailoring the presentation to suit the topic, the reader etc. After all the responses in a discussion are merely records, discourse transactions if you like. The technology should be able to allow the reader to present and organise these as they wish, to suit their needs (which will probably not be constant!). As a very simple example, www.bigtissue.com and all of the Rivals messageboards allow ‘display by thread or topic’ - ie individual posts (threaded) or the whole topic (like a forum).
Another thing that resonates for me is the need to be able to subscribe to conversations (cf UpmyStreet).
Pete Bradshaw: “The technology should be able to allow the reader to present and organise these [responses/records] as they wish”
I am hoping that perhaps we are we beginning to build a consensus around this idea. What might an alternative point of view argue? “can’t do it” ? “let’s make them view it the way we want them to” ?
Very interesting Andy, and yes this will run and run it has for years….. One point I would emphasise (one that Joelonsoftware.com made) is that the ability to ‘chop’ into messages and append your comments to quotes can destroy meaningful discourse as posters are able to ‘nit pick’ without meaningful contributions. So the yes/no contribution, or the use of quotes out of context often prevails. The latter being the kind of practice that poor journalists often engage in.
Point of terminology: I always figured forums come in two flavers — threaded and unthreaded, with the unthreaded variey sometimes called “linear.”
Actually the are message board programs which show threaded discussion all on the same page as an option. Check out an example of DCForum at http://www.dregston.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125 Click on any of the “View all” links to show the threaded, all-on-one page option.
I feel that along with the technology offered for the forums a lot also depends on the level of interest of the reader. We might provoke to gain attention as very rightly pointed by Pete, but in my opinion it is the retaining attention part thet is most difficult.
Anyone who is into running forums has to device different strategies for holding on to the memebers and getting new ones. Can we discuss some of the useful strategies here…i run a forum and wish to benefit from your feedback :-)regards
For me, gutsy, some of the strategies are around provoking and providing. Why should people remain members? they need to be provoked into action, and feel they are getting soemthing out of it. Advertise what they get out of it. Identify key folk and get them to provoke discussion…
Thanks for bringing your knowledge Amy and Gutsy,
I had to chuckle when I clicked on Amy’s name and read:
“It