Poll to choose the new layout structure

To continue in your logic, the Canon 1.6X and Sony sensors 1.5X ( Nikon, Pentax …) are not in the same category either.

I don't see how a poll on this can be done until the admin team clarifies the extent or otherwise that it wants to be a "gear" site (or any other kind of site). Brand discussions/forums, Reviews, News all really gather a big enough audience to be appealing only if they have enough participants so there is lots of info available. The chicken and the egg. In the conversation I'm involved in Open Talk I suggested that most who take part in forums want to discuss gear but that DPR has dominance in this area. The trick will be to find another niche that can generate enough participants to be viable for the kind of market it carves out. I have made suggestions there. If I'm interpreting the responses I have received from admin so far correctly (and I'm finding that difficult) the admin/owners seem to be saying that no, they don't see themselves as a gear site but they still want to have a finger in that pie (without being clear about what this means.)
I suggest that a new layout structure has to reflect the vision that the admin/owners have for the site. ie., the vision needs more clarity before the layout is determined.

I don't really see the conflict you're describing to be honest... This poll is for getting an idea about the preferences for the forum structure only. As fas as I'm aware there aren't any proposals yet for how the editorial content will be structured or implemented, so that will probably be a separate topic later on and depend on who is able to contribute and what. While I assume that the admin team already has some ideas and proposals on that, it doesn't have to do anything with the poll at hand. I welcome a change (particularly the reduction of numbers of subforums overall) in the forum structure and while I'm under no illusion that this change will have a big impact in terms of participation or active members (because of the continuation of dpreview this probably has to be seen treated like a completely new forum starting out, so it will take a significant amount of time to attract more people) I hope that the simpler structure is going to help with visibility and encourage participation in other areas than just 'my narrow niche' (I have been guilty of that in the past, particularly at dpreview and see this as an opportunity to check out new things.

So my suggestions (to everyone, not just you), if you're willing to participate in making this a different site, would probably be the following:

• vote in the poll if you have an opinion on the changes of the forum structure
• think of some additional topics you would like to see in your ideal forum and create them
• consider if you're able and willing to provide something interesting in terms of editorial content and if so, propose it to someone on the team via private thread
• gather your ideas for the upcoming editorial site, but I'd consider it fair to at least wait for a first proposal from the admin team before you call the approach into question.

I agree with that when it comes to the structure of the editorial content, but as stated above, I haven't seen anything on that yet, so let's wait and focus on getting the forum in shape.

I hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying or complicate things even further. I'm optimistic that this project can grow into an interesting site with its own identity over time and that the image sharing as well as discussion of images, concepts, ideas and unique approaches will play a significant role there!

Yes, I totally agree.

In the first week or so after the genesis of dprevived there was a discussion thread about what the mission statement for dprevived should be.

Now, four months on I don't see an agreed/approved mission statement anywhere on this site.

All I see on various threads are mixed and vague descriptions of what admin would like this site to be.

Until what this site stands for and is are clearly defined and published somewhere then it seems to me some admin and members are pulling in different directions.

Given that member activity/participation here has gone over the cliff (judging by the age of posts in the threads list and the number of ranked posts in the users pages) especially since DPReview announced they are not closing then a clear mission statement is the very least this site needs to have any chance of getting back to the member activity and participation of the first month after the birth of dprevived.

A new forum structure alone based on the handful of members still participating on dprevived is not going to make much, if any, difference to anything.

I also agree that a short mission statement would be great (I would have liked to add something like that as a description for the dprevived flickr group I've created).

That being said I highly doubt it's a factor in getting new members on board.

"Sigma" is not one size. They make/have made many different sizes, as have most other manufacturers.

A dilemma for you is in the heirarchy ... do you go sensor size/manufacturer/model or do you go manufacturer/sensor size/model or just manufacturer/model?

I voted option 2 FWIW

Let me explain in my complicated way.
-Everybody was in TURIN-

We all started to go to ROME.
-Everybody has a pretty good idea about WHY we were going to Rome
( go to see to Pope or the Colosseum - Panteon included )

No need to explain.... right ?

Now we are wandering ... Bob tell "It seems good to go to Milan"

Hmmm , Ok.

?? what are we doing once we get to Milan ? ? ? ? ? ?

AlanSh tell us "Now we are going to Milan, I'll reorganize the Train Wagons so they will bring us BETTER to Milan"

Hmmm, Fine.

?? what are we doing once in Milan and WHY ....
W H Y to go to M I L A N ? ? ? ? ? ?

Now we reconvert to go to Milan, sure, interesting ..... MEH

PS: What about VENICE ??

If you don't see a need for a clearly defined and published mission statement that is your opinion to have but imo the lack of a mission statement facilitates admin and members pulling the site in different directions.

On current poll trends it seems whichever poll option you will end up going with, much more than 50% of the vote will have been for other options. That type of result is not ideal.

I'm not sure how that is meant to encourage existing members to stick around.

I suppose it's a bit like the moderation policy here on dprevived.

Only a few weeks into the life of dprevived I posted in pm's to admin and in the forums here that imo the moderation pendulum here has swung too far in the opposite direction from where it was at dpreview and that the likely consequences will be dprevived losing members they would prefer to keep. Other members have posted similar opinions in various threads.

Apart from dpreview now continuing I'm sure a significant part of the reason for the sharp fall off in member participation here is the moderation policy.

Maybe adapt the poll [and the dev site] to vote between the two highest scoring options [and maybe a 'I don't lie these']

Or perhaps use a preferential voting system but that would mean people posting their vote preferences and doing the count manually.

At least with a preferential voting system one option will eventually get at least 50% of the vote.

I am not very active forum member, but registered here from first days and check forum everyday.
I think, that any even small visible changes will be better for dprevived, give some dynamic and be more useful than giant posts about (Where we go from here or infinite discussion about forum structure).

Can we know the conclusion please!

Thanks a lot.