Broadleaf Evergreen section?

leatherback

The Treedeemer
Messages
13,934
Reaction score
26,858
Location
Northern Germany
USDA Zone
7
Do not understand the whole reason for the discussion. It does not *-ing matter much. If I look for something on a specific species, I use the searchfunction.

Much more usefull to me would be to have

- Seedlings
- Sticks in pots
- pre-bonsai
- fully developed
- tree-care
- health
- shaping

All in all.. This is all very personal on how the ideal structure is put together. With this, this thread does not warrant telling people to stop posting, leave the thread or in any other way putting people down. Sad days when people cannot just accept opposing views without getting personal.
 

Rivka

Shohin
Messages
383
Reaction score
384
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
USDA Zone
8b
Honestly I don't know why folks care that much either. certainly not why they care so much they take time to post to express that they don't care.

I brought it up because I am regularly involved with similar structure decisions on forums and I find the choices and logistics interesting.

While when looking for info, searching is most likely the best method, it does not address where folks should post a thread. So if their is going to be sections, they should make sense and provide some order. This also helps narrow searches, no need to search for a term in sections unrelated that will clutter results.

in the end of course, no matter the difference of opinion, there is no reason to turn any thread from a healthy debate of ideas to a personal discussion.
 

Leo in N E Illinois

The Professor
Messages
11,337
Reaction score
23,253
Location
on the IL-WI border, a mile from ''da Lake''
USDA Zone
5b
@Rivka - have you looked at the number of posts in "General Discussion" which could easily have be put in different more specific sub-forums? This site needs ZERO new sub-forums, the current sub-forums are not getting used with any consistency and I doubt that any re-arrangement will help at all. Very few of the members "read", and really think about where they start threads. None of us care much where threads are, we reply or not reply as we see fit.

There are ALREADY 45 sub-forums. We do not need a single additional sub-forum. If you want to re-name some existing sub-forums, I have no problem with that. But we need zero new sub-forums.

Except an Azalea & Rhododendron sub-forum, I like them, I would not mind a separate forum for them, but guess what, we will still get people posting azalea in "General Discussion" It is just the nature of the beast. Actually I'm joking about adding Azalea-Rhododendron, I'm perfectly happy putting them in "Flowering".

Too few really pay attention to the whole list of forums, and almost zero activity on any of the forums below the first 15 forums. Except the 2 "shopping" forums near the bottom of the scroll.

Seriously, I would be fine with reducing the number of forums, not increasing the number. But I am confident that at least 20% of our members don't care, as they just post everything in General and let the search engines sort it out.
 

Rivka

Shohin
Messages
383
Reaction score
384
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
USDA Zone
8b
if you see i do basically sugest renaming, i to agree its always better as fewer streamlined sections as that does lead to better use.

what i want to know is why do folks care enough to come here and argue about this?
I am not trying to convince anyone, it was a damn “site suggestion” from a compulsive logistics person
it was not a “this is stupid, its needs to be done this way, prove me wrong” attack

i have other replies to the argument that has been presented against my suggestion, but since i have zero reason to convince anyone who does not actually decide these things, i’m not going to feed this back and forth.
 

AlainK

Imperial Masterpiece
Messages
5,394
Reaction score
9,485
Location
Orléans, France, Europe
USDA Zone
9A
Do not understand the whole reason for the discussion

Yeah............ 🤤

I first found it funny like any "discussion sur le sexe des anges" (a discussion about the sex of angels), I should have kept my big mouth shut and enjoy the futility of it.

OK, I'm a bit sarcastic at times. 👺
 

defra

Masterpiece
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
5,991
Location
The netherlands Zone 8b
USDA Zone
8b
Renaming a forum or subforum sounds easy but as i do too know plenty about creating, maintaning and changeing one but it also going to require some serious edditing links in the database and also al external links will be demolished so id say no dont do it.
Using the search function is key :)
Still it doesnt mean if a new platform is created it isnt a bad choice to improve the section names but bnut is imo just fine
 

amcoffeegirl

Masterpiece
Messages
2,770
Reaction score
4,794
Location
IOWA
USDA Zone
5b
Anyway sat here waiting on a very late meeting to start, so organized my final thoughts on the initial subject.
Remember folks, this was and still is a friendly feedback and suggestion for the site managers. If you want to disagree be my guest, but don’t be an ass, it’s not a good look.
I don't expect the forum to suddenly change because i suggested it, that would be idiotic. I do think thoughtful suggestions are always helpful and welcome, no matter if actions are directly taken based on them or not. That is why sites have “feedback and suggestions” sections.
so

Seems like after taking in this discussion a great structure would be:

Trees
____________
Pines*
Juniper*
Other Conifers
Deciduous conifers**

Maples*
Elms*
Other Broadleaf (replaces other deciduous)
Broadleaf Evergreens**

Fruiting (grown to display bearing fruit)
Flowering (grown to display in flower)

_________________


In the end the redundant categories are:

•Tropical (everything in here also fits cleanly in another category and no other category is based indigenous range or climate)

and the existing Miscellaneous, since if “Other deciduous” is adjusted to “Other Broadleaf”
There is no longer gaps for things to slip thru.

*what species is given its own section in this example are simply a reflection of what the forum already does, rather than my suggestion, it is neither here nor there in this particular discussion.

**These categories are in fact redundant and I don’t disagree with that on the surface.
I argue that they are sensible additions because they are commonly grown minorities that present broadly shared questions regarding care that often differentiate them from the more general conifer and broadleaf advice.
Again with “Other deciduous” adjusted to “Other Broadleaf” they are not needed if forum traffic does not support their creation.

In that same line of thought Flowing & Fruiting sections are not needed either, but i think most folks would agree they bring up specifics on care, styling and display that are worth providing discussion space for.


Free advice, worth just what you paid for it.
Please leave my tropical category where it is.
Thanks
 
Top Bottom