General Do you still think forums are dead?

[Arantor]

I think the money flowing in from those new forums is a big part of what has kept the developers/designers in business though

Given that most people if they're closing a site to reopen will try to reuse anything they've paid for, I'm not sure that's as true as cited.

Also note that paid-software forums historically stood a better chance of success because of sunk cost fallacy.

 

[Cedric]

So I read a reply a few days ago on a different forum and it got me thinking. The reply was saying forums were dead and due to the lack of interest by the younger generation he said forums no longer work. Everyone wants a forum of their own and by doing so people are stretched all over the place. So instead of working together everyone's for themselves.

I mean, let's think about it... We're all passionate about our websites, forums, and online ventures. Imagine the collective knowledge, the shared experiences, and the skills we could have under in one place.

So you feel that like every webmaster is out for themselves? Maybe it's the fear of losing control or the desire for a personal brand? Why did you choose to create your own forum and not join an established one to work your way up?

 

[Arantor]

Yup, and the side problem is that discovery is hard and there's no convenient way to get a holistic overview.

Half of why Reddit works is because it's not a diaspora of forums, it's one hub with many facets all connected together. Same deal as Discord, one hub under which many connections exist.

 

[Darth Cognus]

So you feel that like every webmaster is out for themselves? Maybe it's the fear of losing control or the desire for a personal brand? Why did you choose to create your own forum and not join an established one to work your way up?

It's this question that puts the in the opposite position of most members here where I'd much rather find something interesting and support it, rather than be an island in a populated but very scattered sea.

 

[RedPanda]

i think from a roleplay avenue they aren't dead but around just a little less since there are other places to roleplay nowadays

 

[Jason]

Yup, and the side problem is that discovery is hard and there's no convenient way to get a holistic overview.

Half of why Reddit works is because it's not a diaspora of forums, it's one hub with many facets all connected together. Same deal as Discord, one hub under which many connections exist.

I don't think everyone wants a forum of their own. In fact, some people just aren't into web development, they just like chatting and having fun.

 

[Arantor]

Um, that wasn’t the point being made nor being replied to?

 

[Tracy]

Making the OWNER of one pissed off, let alone a BBS mod seemed like a bad time. This was back when I and some other people thought it was funny to be 'trolls' and punk kids.

Not something that I personally would have done.. I had no issues with interactions with my BBS users... if I was at home and available.

 

[Tracy]

I think the money flowing in from those new forums is a big part of what has kept the developers/designers in business though

I think some primary script developers "laxity" (looking directly at you XenForo) are going to end up biting them in the posterior. Their insistence on 3rd party support, but then not allowing access to said third party support on their site if you "piss" them off (which is where it is supported) will ultimately bite them in the ass.
Pretty sure there is at least one court case (local) being worked on since it is not in direct abrogation of their license agreement (but their refusal to access site supported license approved add-ons to "banned" users) and can be argued it's a more local general tort case and is not required to be pursed under their default "we require you to chase us in the UK courts) election.

 

[Tracy]

Also note that paid-software forums historically stood a better chance of success because of sunk cost fallacy.

If they had a better chance... where is the fallacy?

For the end user... they really don't care how much the admin has paid into what the access. All they care about is what they can access. If the paid solutions offer more than the "cheap/unpaid" solutions... all that means is that the "cheap/unpaid" solutions are lacking.

 

[Arantor]

Sink cost is almost always a fallacy. Not for the end user, but for the admin.

The amount of work required from the admin to start a successful forum is about the same either way in terms of producing content, but fewer of the free users tend to put it in because they haven’t paid the sunk cost to get started. The paid admins realise they’ve just sunk best part of $200 or more to get started and feel a need to make that investment show something in a way the free folks don’t.

This is in no way perfect as an observation - exceptions absolutely exist on both sides - but it was always the case that those putting in the money would feel the need to invest their time too to not waste the value of their investment, even if the net total of effort worked out about the same in the long run.

This will now be the part where you try to prove the exception to the rule because you’re a contrarian. I’m just relating what I’ve seen in 16 years of forum admin observations, and more years of forum participation.

 

[Cedric]

Sink cost is almost always a fallacy. Not for the end user, but for the admin.

The amount of work required from the admin to start a successful forum is about the same either way in terms of producing content, but fewer of the free users tend to put it in because they haven’t paid the sunk cost to get started. The paid admins realise they’ve just sunk best part of $200 or more to get started and feel a need to make that investment show something in a way the free folks don’t.

This is in no way perfect as an observation - exceptions absolutely exist on both sides - but it was always the case that those putting in the money would feel the need to invest their time too to not waste the value of their investment, even if the net total of effort worked out about the same in the long run.

This will now be the part where you try to prove the exception to the rule because you’re a contrarian. I’m just relating what I’ve seen in 16 years of forum admin observations, and more years of forum participation.

Wish I only had to spend $200. 🥲🤣

But yeah, you have a point. Once an investment is done, they are likely to put in more work compared to free forums. Which is another reason more free forums usually don’t get off the ground as easily. Usually,

 

[Tracy]

Sink cost is almost always a fallacy. Not for the end user, but for the admin.

I think we all know that the majority of persons that are willing to "sink" money into a site encourages them to be more actively engaged in it than if they have no skin in the game.
Without that "admin" the end user does not have a site to pursue their activity on.

 

[Arantor]

I think we all know that the majority of persons that are willing to "sink" money into a site encourages them to be more actively engaged in it than if they have no skin in the game.
Without that "admin" the end user does not have a site to pursue their activity on.

You mean the sunk cost fallacy works. How innovative that thought is.

 

[Tracy]

You mean the sunk cost fallacy works. How innovative that thought is.

no, I simply mean that those that have decided to actually expend REAL monies into a project tend to be more interactive than those that have no skin in the game.
It's simple reality. If you have nothing to lose.... why be concerned if you "lose it"?
You may think otherwise.. but reality typically shows different. When one is willing to expend their hard earned dollars.. they are more apt to work to "recoup" those dollars. When it doesn't cost you anything (or very little)... you won't be as aggressive in the end "recovery" of those costs.
Your belief that it is a "fallacy" itself is very telling in itself.
Are there those that think "I paid for this script and all those add-ons and I should instantly get traffic"? Yes.. there are those amongst us.... and many amongst us are considered by the more adult/reasonable participants as idiot who believe that.
My site doesn't get much activity as far as posts go... and it was never developed with a concern for outside interaction. It was set up for me... and I simply chose to allow others to participate in it if they chose to. I didn't care if it was by posts or any other metric. My site was designed for the benefit of others and if they choose to participate ... great.

 

[Arantor]

How have you never encountered the sunk cost fallacy before? It’s a fairly common sociological phenomenon where people misbelieve that investments cannot be recouped without further investment.

 

[Tracy]

How have you never encountered the sunk cost fallacy before? It’s a fairly common sociological phenomenon where people misbelieve that investments cannot be recouped without further investment.

In itself is a fallacy.
You "assume" that all that choose to invest require a recoupment... guess what.. that is not true.
Please.... feel free to show me ANYWHERE in my near 2K investment that I pursue compensation. And there are many others like me out there... sorry if you may have been "burned" in the past. But the fact is... there ARE those in the "interwebz" that aren't concerned with "making money".

 

[Arantor]

Stop being literal. You’re better than that. You know as well as I do that the investment into something doesn’t have to yield financial results to compensate you for your effort, but that it can easily come from personal satisfaction.

Or, as I put it earlier this is indeed the part where you’re trying to be contrary for the sake of it. Nothing you’ve said actually disagrees with my point.

 

[Tracy]

Stop being literal.

What should I be...illiteral?
The simple fact is... you purport that there is a "fallacy" that sunk costs directly impacts a site.
I simply purport that for some that desire to pay for sites they tend to be more active towards those sites than those who have no skin in the game. I can equally show you evidence of those that suppose that because they paid for a script they should have immediate gains.
Guess what... the simple fact comes down to no matter whether you have paid or not, if you aren't active on your site, you are unlikely to gain traction. And FURTHER... the fact is those that have actually had to expend money out of THEIR pocket are more likely to be active on their sites than those that are using free scripts/free hosting and have a minimal monetary interaction. Some are an "outlier" in reality.

 

[Arantor]

What should I be

I'd suggest literate rather than literal. Words can and do have multiple meanings, and I *know* you're intelligent enough to understand that. Which makes me wonder why you're choosing to present the lowest possible denominator argument here, almost as if you just want to have an argument.