Poll to choose the new layout structure

Nikon 1 system Talk

See here: dprevived.com/c/nikon-1-system-talk/151/

There are 11 models of Nikon 1, manufactured between 2011 and 2015, discontinued for 8 years
And it seems to me much more popular than Canon APS-H cameras.
There are only four models of Canon APS-H cameras between 2004 and 2009, also discontinued for more than 13 years!
If you put the Nikon 1 in discontinued the Canon APS-H should also end up in discontinued.

Maybe "Other System Cameras"?

HAND.

It's already better than discontinued 😎

Not false 👍

It seems to me that if the idea was to become less gear focused, it is unclear to me how having brand-specific gear forums inside format-specific sensor sizes actually helps achieve that goal. In my mind, it makes it worse.

I don’t think that any of these options will achieve the stated goal.

I think Bill said it best yesterday. 3 forums as I recall “digital”, “film” “(and something else)”…….

While I think you‘ve got a point with the missing simplification of that proposed (multi-layer) structure I doubt those categories you cited would even work. "Digital" would make up 99.9% of this forum (which has digital in its name)…

If anything it would probably have to be something like

"Cameras"
"Lenses“
"Accessories/Lighting/Studio"
(…?)

and while I wouldn‘t object to a categorization like that, it has been pretty clear that most people here do, so I think that‘s out of the question.

Well, if most people do object to something like you proposed above or I proposed yesterday then, I think the site owners really need to consider their goal.

Frankly, IMO, if the forums mention a specific brand in the forum name, I doubt that this site will be able to become ‘less gear focused and more focused on results and the process to create the result. “ I don’t think that the goal is achievable if there are a dozen forums for each of the brands.

I look forward to seeing what transpires.

Hard to vote if the alternatives are these:

Arvo, no, not what I suggested. My suggestion was based simply on the depth of the tree (ie, increasing the depth). And then allowing “reading entry” at depths 1,2,3 etc (which allows for reading aggregation - like we already have with our limited depth tree). So doing would allow us to avoid what I see as a somewhat false dichotomy between things like “format-first vs brand-first”.

I agree you can’t solve the generalized problem with layers. But the real question is not can we solve the generalized problem - it’s can we make it incrementally better “enough”. An artfully designed presentation (ie, good useability, not busy) with 1 additional level would eliminate the need for some of the opposing choices that are being posited here.

Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding the goal of the redesign. Yesterday, I read a post in which you wrote that the goal was to move away from being a gear site toward being a photography site. All the versions have a host of gear-specific discussion forums dominating the landing page. The forums for the sharing and discussion of photography in various genres are buried deep down the page. If these are the only options, they scream "gear site" with discussion of photography being an afterthought.

Personally, I’m not wedded to any specific presentation of brand & format options. I’d just like to see a flexible way to view the content based on format (eg, I do agree that medium format has it’s own specific considerations) & brand & other things.

re: being less gear specific: I hear you… but unless you’re going to eliminate gear discussions (IMHO not wise; part of EXPERIENCE of photography as I said earlier in this thread), you have to organize them somehow.