There are a LOT of FMSlacks out there, some better than others, often based on who gets invited, and how it is moderated. I ran a global SLACK NPO for a couple years for a global startup accelerator.
The real time interaction is great and IMHO, a far better interactive experience than a forum, but the content feels far more transient. When I go on FileMakerToday and look at some of my posts from a decade ago, I wish that forum content was far more transient - it would be less embarrassing. 
.
So is the plan to just all N number of random questions to be posed, or is there an intent to set up topical channels of discussion based on some affinity analysis? I would vote for topical area, in order to 1) pursue areas of interest and 2) not waste time searching the entire legacy data set for a specific item when I may not even know the specifics to search, but do know the subject area.
Design/UX/UI
Schema
Scripting
Layouts
Custom functions
Javascript
Integrations
Mobile
Performance
Hosting
JSON
WebDirect
Data API
CWP
FMCloud
Hosting
Licensing
Probably a number of others, but the thought was that allocation to some structured data hierarchy might make discovery of information cleaning, especially if the interest in the topic is more general that specific.
That’s like fmforum. I believe too much topics would just make this more difficult. I also think that if there are topics, those should be decided only when enough messages has been sent and all content become (if) too complex to consume without topics.
Problem with Slack is it’s synchronous nature of communication. Synchronous communication is good when you’re dealing with a problem with someone at that time. Forums make communication asynchronous and more thoughtful. You can spend some time think and to format the answer.
2 Likes
I feel like this forum and community is now heading a slightly too fast in formal questions (associations, funding etc). I think there should be real content first before making decisions about other things?
Is it possible to host the forum maybe for couple of months (say until end of this year) with reasonable costs without making too rigid decisions?
1 Like
Kirk said:
So is the plan to just all N number of random questions to be posed, or is there an intent to set up topical channels of discussion based on some affinity analysis? I would vote for topical area, in order to 1) pursue areas of interest and 2) not waste time searching the entire legacy data set for a specific item when I may not even know the specifics to search, but do know the subject area.
I would be vehemently against such a plan of breaking it into 17+ different topic areas. For me, that is precisely what is wrong with the official forum (and was wrong as well with the Jive iteration). When I think back to when I loved FMI's official forum it was when there was one area -- one community -- where everyone gathered. Why would I post a question to (for example) CWP when there are only a handful of people there? Everyone learns AND feels part of a community when posts are all in one area, with well-defined subject lines that make it easy to skip over posts that aren't of interest, and when we know each other from our previous posts and answers (rather than me dropping into the WebDirect community for a question, the scripting forum for another question or answer, etc). Most questions (and answers) cover more than one general category heading anyhow, which makes such splits confusing, random, and unnecessary.
4 Likes
And if I have to spend precious time pouring over a mass of garbage that has zero interest to discover nuggets of topically relevant info, then this forum is of zero use to me. Glad you have time to waste - I don’t.
However, the 2 concepts are NOT mutually exclusive, as any good database designer knows. But whether Discourse is flexible enough to present data in different slices/dices, that may not be an option.
I think its fair to say the happy medium is somewhere in-between or provide the ability to see the posts in whatever format the user desires ie by strict categories, by tags, or just all in one list. I don’t visit FMforums as I find the layout overly complicated and overly categorised - its difficult to know where to look for answers.
2 Likes
It would have been my first inclination as well. I feel comfortable dealing with it informally. Either way I manage things very transparently. However I am aware that my word is just it and when there’s money involved, people are uncomfortable, rightfully so, to put so much trust in non enforceable situations. There’s also the notion of liability. What if someone feels that some action on the site causes them harm in one way or the other, and decides to sue?
Hence the reason why I designed this place to have a channel for all the questions and one for all discussion topics (lounge). We have not used it yet because we spend most time here giving shape to this community but I expect it will be the buzzing place.
Fluid organisation
The archives channel will provide presets permitting to access categories of topics thanks to the tagging system.
Structured organisation
The collections channel allows people to curate collections of material according to the thematics they favour. Ex: fmpdude (my example collection atm) could curate a collection of articles links, etc about micro services complementary to FM
Resources channel is the official “repertoire” of resources that have been found credible in the FM ecosystem
I would also love to have not much categories/topics - it is easier to put a question IMHO
Tale of 2 (FM) SLACKS.
One has the philosophy of one channel, and jumbled communications with interleaved topics.
Another defined channels for topical conversation.
Both started at about the same time, with many of the same people.
The first site goes through their 10,000 message search history quota about once every ? years (they have not gotten there in years).
The second site uses their 10,000 messages every 4-6 weeks.
There were likely other factors that were part of the success/failure as well, but in general, IMHO, the lack of data segregation into topical discussions made the first site virtually useless.
Not that forums would suffer the same malady - this is just a data point to consider, and not worth hanging your hat on.
I also agree that categories can be more of a hindrance than a help. Frequently, compartmentalising questions into a specific category makes little sense; from the list above, a question might well cover scripting, custom functions and performance (in fact, it could probably cover almost any combination of items from the list).
However, I would have thought it was possible to satisfy both points of view - with both simple and advanced searches, and options to view/search by channels or tags (though I’m not sure how tags work in Discourse).
2 Likes
The basic search and advanced functionalities address this. I eliminated the concept of categories on Discourse to utilise the power of tags
2 Likes
I also do think, that the idea of categories make things only more difficult. In many cases it will be not clear, in which categories a question should go, e.g when you have a question concerning client/server or when you have questions touching both, UI and programming.
To be honest, I don’t see, how categories can help at all, while I mainly find things by typing in search expressions. That’s what I love about the German FMM Forum: it’s clean and simple, though it lacks a lot of tasty features this forum has to offer. 
2 Likes
Sorry guys, would love to be more involved but dealing with a number of ‘issues’ here at the moment.
First, we’re not keen on fixed categories, although tags seemed to work well. The key thing for us would be a good search facility, if categories are introduced, then that would be fine by us providing there is a consolidated ‘all’ or ‘everything’ area, as our limited time makes glancing through this more useful. Think of Google, initial search, followed up by subcategories if needed maybe. But most recent posting list from all categories our preference.
Secondly, we’d be willing to commit a contribution to this site in line with others who have volunteered.
Now, amongst other things, back to data that has been copied and pasted from who knows where that is completely breaking FileMaker’s save as PDF option.
Keep up the good work.
1 Like
What is breaking FM save as PDF? Not sure I got what you meant
Don’t worry Cecile I don’t think Andy has an issue with the forum but with a FileMaker save as PDF option in one of his solutions!
1 Like
Unless people consider there is an important need/reason to change the current structure (I don’t understand why that came on the topic- derailing from the more important matters at hand) can we please focus on what it takes to move forward? here or in the thread What do you want to see happening?
The way I designed this place has been appreciated so far and until we have more content, it is pointless to start debating whether the concept is bad or good or what could be improved. Please do not think I am offended or feel sensitive because it is my design: although I am confident in the choices I made, I am absolutely opened to make changes down the road. I don’t waste energy in such sensitivities.
However I do see an (normal) evasion from the decision taking processes we have engaged. For whatever reason this is happening, unless you feel that your participation in THIS community is conditional to changes you want to see implemented (in such case I invite you to take the time to examine your motives, pm me if necessary), please remain focused on the steps we are currently working on, which are deciding of how we will manage the pragrmatic aspects of money, hosting, legal form (or not) etc.
Thanks for clarifying. Was trying to understand and sometimes, because English is not my first language, I don’t know why I can’t make sense of what I am reading (lacking the language native hability to substitute or add words or missing punctuation to “get” speech to text expressions; which I have for French when we express ourselves in that manner).