In my
last column, I discussed the types of
forums that are available to help people to come
together online, whether they are online at the same
time or not. Within the realm of message boards (an
example of an asynchronous tool; see my
last column for an explanation) , there are a
couple of different ways to organize the messages. Many
people don't realize this, but it can make all the
difference in the world in how people interact on your
message boards.
Two Methods of
Organization
There are two basic ways
to organize message board posts: threaded and
conversational. Some people have a strong preference for
one or the other, but either will work. Each has its
strengths and weaknesses.
Conversational (Linear)
Conferencing
In conversational mode,
also known as linear conferencing, posts are placed in
chronological order, one after the other. This
organizational method is good for a group of regular
participants engaged in free-flowing, deep conversation.
For example, this might work well with a health-related
community in which there are groups for various
illnesses and members are providing support to one
another. It's hard to find one post out of the bunch,
however, so if you need to be able to find needles in
haystacks, you might be better off with a threaded
organizational structure.
Threaded Conferencing
With threaded
conferencing, the posts are arranged like an outline,
with one post immediately following the one to which it
is replying. Threaded organization works well in
situations where people need to be able to find a
particular piece of information in a hurry, such as in
technical support forums. Threaded organization fosters
multiple small conversations rather than one group
discussion.
A Comparison
While threaded
conversations might seem more organizationally
intuitive, forums generally get more participation when
they use conversational mode. This is because people
tend to find conversations straightforward and easy to
follow.
If you have not
experienced both modes, I would encourage you to do so,
to get a feel for which one you prefer. Quite frankly, I
have a strong bias toward conversational mode. Threading
works well for newsgroups and other non-Web-based
applications, but I feel that it's more difficult to use
it on the Web.
Resources
Advantages and disadvantages of linear and threaded
conferencing
Linear conferencing
boards:
Discus
Caucus
Ultimate
BB
Threaded conferencing
boards:
WebBoard
Boards that support
both threads and conversations:
Web
Crossing
WWWThreads
Depending on the shape
your community takes, group members may or may not be
online at the same time. Either way, there are tools to
allow group members to communicate.
People gathering at the
same time, using chat or instant messaging, is known as synchronous
interaction. If participants are online at different
times, using Web message boards, newsgroups, or e-mail,
it's called asynchronous interaction.
We'll explore the
advantages and disadvantages of these two modes of
communication, and find out which tends to work best in
different situations.
Synchronous
Communication — all
participants are online simultaneously.
Examples: online chats,
instant messages.
Advantages: Good
for meetings in which you want to get everyone's input
quickly. Allows real-time interaction and is helpful to
bring a group to consensus on an issue that has been
discussed in e-mail or message boards previously. Chat
is sometimes used for interviewing celebrities or expert
guests because it allows participants to ask questions
and receive answers during the short time the celebrity
or expert is available. A special chat setup called an
"auditorium" can be used to let very large
groups of people view a guest interview. A transcript
can be kept for those who couldn't attend, or to be
discussed later by the group. An instant message can
bring a quick answer on a timely question.
Disadvantages: Facilitators
require some training and experience to be able to use
this medium to its best advantage for a structured
group. Difficult to coordinate if you have participants
in several time zones or scattered around the globe.
Quick typists have an advantage, and the real-time pace
doesn't generally encourage long, thoughtful comments.
Can be labor-intensive (for facilitators) compared with
some other modes of interaction. Requires a commitment
from each participant to show up (on time!) at the
appointed hour, for the scheduled length of time.
Asynchronous
Communication — participants need not
be online simultaneously.
Examples: mailing lists,
news groups, Web-based discussions.
Advantages: Good
for long, thoughtful discussions of an issue, when you
want to allow time for every stone to be turned.
Participants can log on and share their thoughts
whenever they have time and the spirit moves them, as
often as they wish. Slower typists are not at a
disadvantage, and the medium allows time for more
thoughtful comments. It's easy to require posts or
e-mail to be checked and approved by a moderator before
they're sent to the entire group, which cuts down on
"noise."
Disadvantages: Difficult
to bring a group to consensus or to make a quick
decision on an issue. One person with strong opinions
who says a lot can, in effect, drown out quieter voices
and make it seem as if "everyone" feels that
way.
Resources
Synchronous communication:
ICQ
AOL
Instant Messenger
Yahoo!
Chat
Asynchronous
communication:
Forum
One
Usenet-Replayer
OneList
|
