I would keep Discourse on the list for now. The software application has been around for about 10 years. It is open source, meaning it was developed by a group of programmers and then put into the public domain. We could get our own instance of the application at one of several hosting sites (Discourse, Communiteq, or DigitalOcean). They do all the care and feeding (security, updates, required services, etc) same as we have with the hosted INA website.
Nothing beats free, of course, but thinking back to ECO-101, there is an “opportunity cost” in not having some capabilities. I also think it’s fair to say that while on one hand making no change requires zero effort, on the other some of us are putting effort into one-off tasks like organizing events, documentation, possibly videos, etc. that would be easier and more accessible in a “community” application. And being able to have a live chat on some of the topics that come up would be a nice feature… maybe we can tie a google chat space to our group…
Hi All,
Reading this thread I see some folks have a desire to morph the discussion group into a repository of knowledge. Others see the INA Website as the repository of knowledge and the group as a place to collaborate and discuss new ideas and perspectives.
While it is common these days to enlist AI to sift through discussions and summarize them, summary of semi-informed dialog is not particularly helpful ( to me ). I much prefer access to information that is curated by someone or something ( just to leave the door open for AI ) with an expert level understanding of the topic. After participating in the group for the past year, I see we have enough experts to provide useful answers for folks that are new to NonSuch. But they have to keep answering the same questions as new folks join the group.
I propose that before we replace our discussion platform ( Google Groups ), we make an effort to understand why questions that have already been answered on the INA website keep getting asked in the group.
In the process of understanding why the same questions keep getting asked, we’ll discover ways to utilize our expert contributors more effectively and possibly increase the use of the valuable information that already exists in a curated repository ( INA website ). We may discover a different way to organize and the website.
Take for example the recent question of “Does anyone have a winterization checklist ?” The answer is “Yes in Appendix 5 of the new owners guide.”
If we have extra volunteer brainpower, maybe we should use it to make our knowledge repository more accessible and complete ?
Can’t resist a silly analogy… the “proof” of the information in the discussion group is sort of like beer, and many of the documents on the website are more like aged Scotch Whiskey.
Beer and Scotch both have a place in a sailors diet, but the difference is clear.
Let’s distill the information from the discussion group into a form where it can be searched and queried.
The issue of distilling the DG was a task that the INA first started kicking about 12 years ago. It was soon discovered that it was no simple task with two parts, finding the best “answer” in many posts on a given subject and reviewing it for accuracy and timeliness. The sheer volume of data at 6000 conversations and maybe 40,000 posts is overwhelming. Hauling stone tablets up a mountain looked easier.
Simple as this sounds it turned into a major effort that defied a solution for a decade until the recent Board brought to life the Guide for a New Owner . Even the vast sea of Catalina 30 owners can not find such a resource.
But the need to ask a question lives on . New owners asking questions is to be expected and embraced. I have owned mine 26 since 2002 and to my amazement I don’t know everything. And even when I think I know I’ll ask because there is always another way.
I think your beer analogy is brilliant, the DG is like having a beer with other like minded sailors.
Hi Thor,
Thanks for your appreciation for my analogy. I always enjoy when my hobbies provide obscure tangents. I brew and sail.
Regarding a new perspective for a perennial challenge ( promise no gardening analogies to follow ). I am a new group member and I have benefitted from many DG conversations, maybe my contribution ought to be to “distill” the information I glean from the discussion into a higher proof form and if it passes muster donate it to our information repository?
A random example…
The question about using a pigtail to access shore power ( NEMA L5-30P to NEMA 5-15 ) could be distilled in a short article entitled “Risks and benefits of using a pigtail to access shore power” .
To test my understanding of the discussion and conclusions, I could write a short one page article and submit for review. I would benefit from feedback from someone that know more than me. INA would benefit if we added the article ( after review) to our curated body of information.
There may be other newbies with the same enthusiasm that would do the same. The idea is to put in a little effort to pay forward for the benefits we’ve gotten from other volunteers without disrupting the delicate balance of our Nonsuch sailing community.
Sorry for being they guy who replies to his own posts, but as I hit post, I realized the process I’m describing might fit into a wiki-like model… that could provide some content management capabilities that are cumbersome with tools currently used to manage the INA website.
There are maybe a thousand or more members of INA? They are all people and people are all different and like to learn and get their information in different ways. A subset of those, maybe a hundred or two (?), are in this group. The website has lots of great information for us and for the public. There’s also a Facebook group. And there are the guides (Buyer’s and New Owner’s) and regional chapters and various cruises and get-togethers. It was this richness of resources that gave me the confidence to buy such an unusual boat to be the last one in my life. I think a sophisticated means of querying all of that accumulated knowledge would be a very useful addition to these other resources, but not as a replacement for any of them. Because we all think and learn differently.
Personally, I learn by doing and then asking the questions that inevitably arise. (A phrenologist would find the lumps on my skull to be quit a long novel.) So I find this group and the nearly infinite patience that is demonstrated here to be invaluable. I’ll follow if it moves, but I’d hate to see it replaced by an AI.
I do sometimes use the search bar on the group homepage, so I hope that history is retained in some way, even if we do move. And that a new platform has a similar capability. But there are so many old threads that sometimes the information I seek is overwhelmed. Maybe an AI would be helpful for that, but I’m not sure. I come across AIs in tech help chats all the time and they are not usually very helpful, but that’s really about all that I know about them.
I think the biggest issue with AI will be getting someone to do it and to make sure whatever they do is maintainable by others. Right now I suspect that just transitioning the group to a different platform will be challenging enough - if the Board even decides to do that.
We just had an instance where it would be great if we could create a fork off of the original thread into one about shore power cords, move it to a Wiki space, and then have someone volunteer to summarize the content and send that thru a short review process before releasing it as part ot the knowledge base/Wiki. Ditto with the discussion about email clients. We could add content to the Wiki as it is created when someone (or a small group) has the time to put something together and review it. It would automatically be searchable and not hidden inside a PDF document (I am not at all knocking the New Owners Guide - I think it’s great and appreciate all of the work that went into it - I printed out a copy). It takes sophisticated software to search inside a PDF document.
I also think that current AI capabilities would be useful to summarize a discussion thread, or search the knowledge base to provide a summary and to point to the complete article/discussion. For our hypothetical (pathetical) budget, I don’t think we need to fear buying too much in this area.
To take a whack at things (what we used to call a “straw man”) -
Must Haves (at least until decided otherwise) -
be able to import all previous email conversations and have them searchable / usable
be able to have people participate only through email if they choose (and, of course, miss the new capabilities)
have a searchable knowledge base / Wiki with easy ways to control access, content, team functions (creation, editing, review)
comprehensive administrative capabilities and controls
Good to Have -
easily fork discussion threads into different topics
It’s interesting when you look at the dynamics of both FB and the DG. The DG membership count is a bit misleading as it is impossible to know who is no longer following the group. They just leave the room unannounced. So the actual member count is less than the 1000 listed. There use to be a way to see who posted and in the past 25 members accounted for 85%. Speaking to owners over the years there are many who never post but read the discussions regularly.
The downside it’s a pretty basic tool and has seen zero change over the 25 years. The upsides are it is zero effort to maintain and pretty easy to use. Ease help with adoption.
Facebook sees similar membership and use. A small number of actually post, I am sure many more lurk and more than a few are ghosts.
IMHO the DG gives us a lot of bang for the effort and expense. It answers questions as it was intended to do. It was never intended to be a encyclopaedia of knowledge. That mission requires the info be curated . The new owners guide was a step in that direction and has proved to be very well received.
My suggestion would be to revisit the current owners manuals and up date them. A section on engines both diesel and electric, dingy usage, anchor selection and installation, rigging needs updating, etc. There are many topics in those manuals that could be expanded into “upkeep” vs the current “how to use” focus.
The Web site has undergone 4 major revisions since the days of David Smith writing it in CCS code line by line. It very complete. The challenge is there is so much info , but I think in this case less is NOT more and all in all its one of the better sailing web sites.
When you compare other sail boat associations the INA has to be at the top if the pack. Mainly due a history of strong Board participation and members having these discussions over the years. All for the same $45 same the 1980’s… So it you have not joined what are you waiting for??
As a mostly lurker/reader and occasional poster, Thor’s and Bob Neches contributions to this particular thread resonate most with me.
Also I’d just like to say that I’ve been hugely impressed and grateful by the effort to produce the Quick Guide. Thanks to all involved in that.
As well, the collection of manuals and other material over on the website is hugely valuable.
I don’t use Facebook.
Just my two cents, for now.
Discourse could be an option, but the $100 plan isn’t going to include moving the old Google chat discussions. Migration services are only included in the $500 per month plan. If you want to migrate the Google Discussions into the new software (Discourse or something else), it would be better to hire a programmer to do that work. The Discourse website recommends Literate Computing for data migration; the ballpark cost estimates are $1,000 to $2,500.
With our low budget, I think we need to be prepared to not migrate the Google’s Discussions into the new discussion software, and instead keep it as a read-only archive of past discussions. I know many people will likely say “No way, you’ve got to migrate the old data”, but it’s going to cost a lot of money be time consuming to test, and may not look like or be as searchable as you like when it’s done.
I preface this with a bit of background. In a previous era I managed some large scale “conversions” of legacy systems both in process manufacturing, and ERP .
These projects do not start with a discussion of one software vs another and eyeball estimate of costs. That is a sure road to failure.
Users need to agree on what they are trying to do. What process or information do they need, when and how best to get it. Rank the “needs” in order of importance and assign as best you can a value. Then measure the needs in terms of cost and complexity and rank again. It is often a surprise when needs are evaluated against cost and complexity. Fast, simple, cheap is a steep tall order to beat. The jargon is low hanging fruit.
In the 1990’s the INA pioneers using the new “internet” . Davic Smith, a Nonsuch sailor and retired software programmer wrote the CCS / HTML code line by line for the first web site. We joined the AOL list server for our Discussion Group.
When Dave became ill and could no longer participate we searched for a replacement as supporting the web site was impossible. One line of bad code would have crashed the whole thing.
At the same time we wanted to move off a cheque based membership payment system that was very inefficient to a. credit card system. We realized that moving off the old site and on to a new site was a risk and moving members off cheques to credit cards was going to be a major membership risk and task. We focused our efforts on the membership and hired a firm that “did” membership software. It came at price but reduced the risk and we focused on our core needs, membership. Once the membership process was fully transitioned to credit cards we then had enough experience with web sites to move to a more affordable platform.
Any change needs to ensure all members come along and view the change as meeting current or evolving needs. Change that does not add measurable value in the eyes of “users” is never successful.
The INA has tackled these challenges successfully in the past and I am sure the future will be no different , just look at your membership fees over the past 25 years…
And lastly
In any project there are 3 things you can have
Content or scope
Quality
Time
you get to pick only two…the other the project gods keep. My boat rewire project was completed as designed, and the quality was excellent… it took 3 times as long as I planned.
The version of Thor’s saying that I grew up with was, “You can have it done fast, cheap, or right – pick any two of the three.”
Responding to his good advice about identifying what needs would be met by a change, here’re a few thoughts about features that would attract me to different discussion management tool. These are in the order I thought of them, not any particular priority order:
Some way to see if there’s a pre-existing thread to join vs. starting a new one
A better search tool than Google’s text search
Some way to reorganize threads so that the parts of a thread that are on a different topic can easily be moved and each part can continue separately
Some way for people to tag or upvote or pin particularly helpful responses so that others don’t have as much trouble finding them
Some way to mark-up pictures that are posted (e.g., if someone posted a picture of their mast and you wanted to say, “Did you notice this little corrosion spot over here?”)
An easy way for people looking via email to get their response into the right thread. Right now, those tend to show up as a thread labelled “Discussion Digest”
Some notification mechanism to get a particular person or group’s attention. Right now, the closest you can get is to write, “Clem Kadiddlehopper is a real expert on this, I hope they see this post and respond.” And then sit back and hope they’re looking at the discussion board.
Other concerns would definitely be:
How easy is it for people to learn? How easy is it for them to move over to it?
How much does it cost to set up?
How much work and expense would it take to maintain?
How likely is the service provider to stay in business?
Can it still give access to our past body of information?
I’m probably missing a bunch of critical points, but I’ll stop here.
Hi All,
About a week ago I expressed an opinion that :
I’m not bothered by the limited capabilities of Google Groups and Facebook.
Having a better organized information repository would fill a gap that I currently experience each time I use any of the many documents hosted on the INA website. I still feel this way and am willing to help with such an effort. I went so far as to write an share a summary of a recent discussion. ( HERE ), but I’m not exactly sure how to submit it or where it would fit into the taxonomy the website currently uses to organize content. For now, my time is best spent privately organizing information I feel is relevant for maintaining Soave.
I also, shared some information about how to overcome some of the delivery issues participates have with groups, but I fear my comments were viewed as being a supporter of Google Groups. I’m actually just trying to support the idea of sharing NonSuch information. I’m agnostic to platform and , like Thor work to help organizations use technology to maximize overall efficacy, including quality, quantity, and efficiency. Emphasis on the word WORK… because managing a project that introduces change while avoiding chaos is no easy task. I understand, thank, and respect those who brought our group to Google years ago.
I promised myself I’d refrain from discussing how we ought to discuss our mutual interest ( NonSuch ) and focus my efforts on participating in discussing Nonsuch stuff… which at this point in my life is more interesting than technology platforms.
But I can’t resist from offering a couple more thoughts :
Modern search and now AI platforms make it pretty easy to find information… soon AI will run OCR on the images of printed documents published on the INA website and return results from the manuals that are published there. There are still Nonsuch data artifacts floating in cyber space ( HERE ) are photos of my boat published by INA from roughly 20 years ago. My point, don’t burden the future with our past by trying to blindly migrate old (un-curated ) information to the new platform. Just leave it in place as a record of the past and let the future evolve unencumbered.
Listserv is a clever extension of email from 50 years ago. It is built on a very old paradigm that many of our current group participants prefer. When INA is ready for a new discussion platform select the best one available not the one that offers the best compromise between the past and future. This probably means we’ll have to forfeit the ability to reply from our email clients… we’ll optionally get email notifications that will deep link us back to a context in the collaboration platform and will view and interact in well formed threads within the platform.
10 or even 5 years ago I would have hated the idea of having active conversations on both Facebook and Google Groups. Now it seems almost natural and I’m thinking maybe the important thing is that folks have places to talk about NonSuch…maybe starting a new alternative for discussion without killing the old ones is a smarter bet in the long run ?
Thanks to all the generous folks that support the INA.
Why not start up a discussion at discourse the cheapest option and keep the google groups? No migration just two groups not too hard to remember and eventually discourse will fill and google will be a place where things are stored and referenced. No more having to scroll down thru 100s of lines of irrelevant stuff.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the scrolling bit. I don’t have to scroll down for anything.
Joe Valinoti
S/V iL Gatto NS30U #221
Sea Harbour YC
Oriental, NC USA
Google Groups would be far less painful if people used proper grammar, checked their own spelling, and didn’t click on “Show quoted text” when replying to a message.
