Future of non-cycling discussion on Bike Hub

[The Ouzo]

In terms of forum only users (excluding classifieds).. I'm convinced their stats are not truly reflective... Something's amiss

Have to agree with you. I think classifieds needs to be excluded from forum traffic to give a true reflection.

 

But someone once said something along the lines of

“ stats are like a bikini, they hide the things you don’t want people to see and show people what you want them to see”

[Craai]

In terms of forum only users (excluding classifieds).. I'm convinced their stats are not truly reflective... Something's amiss

Got to agree with you; If I just look at the active topics list (which is obviously a dynamic list continuously updating), I can't see how the off-topic discussion are generating so little traffic stats.

 

Maybe it was KPMG audited.... They have been known to get the odd audit "wrong" *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*

Edited December 9, 2020 by Craai

[Patchelicious]

In terms of forum only users (excluding classifieds).. I'm convinced their stats are not truly reflective... Something's amiss

There is a bit of Buch's in all of us

[Jewbacca]

I think there it is again. It's important to you, so you see value in it. You also don't want to be told there isn't value to it as you believe there is.

 

Guys are the same with their god, their science, their social perceptions. No one likes to be told that what they see and how they see it isn't as important as they think it is.

 

Lets say I buy Matzos from Pick n Pay 4 times a week. Suddenly they decide Matzos isn't that important so they stop stocking it because it only makes up 400zar a week sales.

 

That would be devastating to me and the other 16 Matzos people, but to the other 55000 shoppers who don't buy Matzos, it makes no difference.

 

We are unfortunately the Matzos buyers, whether you like to believe it or not.

[Skylark]

I think they are stating these its not massive.

The argument Matt seemed to make was the traffic is massive but not in a form that affects his bottom line, hence not worth his time or bandwidth.

 

Some say that is due to the way the site drives you to the classifieds landing page which would artificially inflate the traffic to certain areas but that's besides the point. The forum and website is an organic beast, if the forums lose steam and hemorrhages too many users along with their network then the website ie the cash cow will start getting anemic.

 

Would Bikehub be where it is today without its users?

 

Matt basically reckons he's outgrown us, the goose is no longer required because the eggs are now laid of their own accord. My point is that understanding has not served other forums well, those that decided that their commercial needs supersede those of the community. The opposite is actually true, treat the community well and the business side will flourish.

 

Forums are a dying breed, Facebook groups is where it's at, legacy forums need to look after their flock.

[Patchelicious]

The argument Matt seemed to make was the traffic is massive but not in a form that affects his bottom line, hence not worth his time or bandwidth.

 

Some say that is due to the way the site drives you to the classifieds landing page which would artificially inflate the traffic to certain areas but that's besides the point. The forum and website is an organic beast, if the forums lose steam and hemorrhages too many users along with their network then the website ie the cash cow will start getting anemic.

 

Would Bikehub be where it is today without its users?

 

Matt basically reckons he's outgrown us, the goose is no longer required because the eggs are now laid of their own accord. My point is that understanding has not served other forums well, those that decided that their commercial needs supersede those of the community. The opposite is actually true, treat the community well and the business side will flourish.

 

Forums are a dying breed, Facebook groups is where it's at, legacy forums need to look after their flock.

From a longer term roadmap, I can see why they would want to move to a platform type model. Question is are forums the most efficient way to drive this? There are other ways of driving appropriate traffic to the monitorization funnels of the platform, networks, complementaries, affinities etc.

 

I can understand why it might feel that way, but I don't think that's the case necessarily. Perhaps due to the many years invested here, we might be taking some of this too personally. I'm not a fan, but I understand why they need to redeploy their limited resources elsewhere. 

 

Perhaps a solution is to segregate the chit chat into a separate site/brand but connected page, and allow community moderation in that.

[The Ouzo]

From a longer term roadmap, I can see why they would want to move to a platform type model. Question is are forums the most efficient way to drive this? There are other ways of driving appropriate traffic to the monitorization funnels of the platform, networks, complementaries, affinities etc.

 

I can understand why it might feel that way, but I don't think that's the case necessarily. Perhaps due to the many years invested here, we might be taking some of this too personally. I'm not a fan, but I understand why they need to redeploy their limited resources elsewhere.

 

Perhaps a solution is to segregate the chit chat into a separate site/brand but connected page, and allow community moderation in that.

The thing is, you can’t look at this in isolation.

Look at the changes that have happened, not least the subscription model that was introduced.

How long before certain features/sections etc. get put behind the paywall?

[Patchelicious]

The thing is, you can’t look at this in isolation.

Look at the changes that have happened, not least the subscription model that was introduced.

How long before certain features/sections etc. get put behind the paywall?

Trust me I'm not, I have a little understanding of the digital platform markets.

 

How has the subscription model devalued the Bike Hub experience for you?

 

What's wrong with putting items that warrant and has value behind a pay wall?

 

Perhaps to reframe your question, for how long do we expect Matt and the team to not evolve and grow their business simply so that we can argue about Trump or talk Formula 1?

 

I think some of this its still probably being taken too personally, understandably so as we all have invested time and effort into this community.

[Stretch]

The thing is, you can’t look at this in isolation.

Look at the changes that have happened, not least the subscription model that was introduced.

How long before certain features/sections etc. get put behind the paywall?

I'll happily have chit chat behind a paywall. To be honest.. Better tweety bird, one Facebook group and bikehub... There's where I invest all my time online socially. Take chit chat away and I'll move on to something else I guess.. But I'll move along

[Skylark]

From a longer term roadmap, I can see why they would want to move to a platform type model. Question is are forums the most efficient way to drive this? There are other ways of driving appropriate traffic to the monitorization funnels of the platform, networks, complementaries, affinities etc.

 

I can understand why it might feel that way, but I don't think that's the case necessarily. Perhaps due to the many years invested here, we might be taking some of this too personally. I'm not a fan, but I understand why they need to redeploy their limited resources elsewhere.

 

Perhaps a solution is to segregate the chit chat into a separate site/brand but connected page, and allow community moderation in that.

Whatever the case is over monetization of a forum never works, there's a limit to what you can extract and pushing it too far past that point starts to kill the community on which it is based.

 

The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous, "Hey guys having vibrant discussions is getting a bit much and not overtly making us money so we thought best to cut them off".

 

I'm looking at this in a purely objective standpoint, Bikehub as a business wouldn't be here without the vibrant forum that it grew around, would it be sustainable and lucrative if that same forum became a shadow of its former self?

 

From my experience the answer is no.

 

All forums are the same, users came for the info and subject help and stayed for the chit chat. Many also read the chit chat despite not engaging in it themselves.

[Jewbacca]

Whatever the case is over monetization of a forum never works, there's a limit to what you can extract and pushing it too far past that point starts to kill the community on which it is based.

 

The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous, "Hey guys having vibrant discussions is getting a bit much and not overtly making us money so we thought best to cut them off".

 

I'm looking at this in a purely objective standpoint, Bikehub as a business wouldn't be here without the vibrant forum that it grew around, would it be sustainable and lucrative if that same forum became a shadow of its former self?

 

From my experience the answer is no.

 

All forums are the same, users came for the info and subject help and stayed for the chit chat. Many also read the chit chat despite not engaging in it themselves.

They aren't monetizing the forums?

 

This is where the discrepancy in association is. Bikehub is one of the only 'hobby specific' market places. Not a group on a general market pace. 

 

The forum side of Bikehub is dear to some people, but those people make up a really small percentage of users.

 

Ouzo suggesting that they will 'hide behind a paywall' is just speculation on his part. It's ike being bummed at your wife because you think she might in the future maybe have an affair.

 

Nothing they have done has taken away any user benefits. PLUS bought you some advert space and a discount towards boosting ads in the classifieds.

 

The forum aspect of this site is not as vast as we think it is. Or rather, not as vast as some of us perceive it. As I said earlier, it is big and important if you use it, but more than three quarters of consistent bikehub users don't even open the form section of the website.

 

I think less than 10% (if memory serves) have ever commented on a forum.

 

They also aren't removing the forum section. Just the off topic chit chat as it stands now. I am 100% sure there will be more off topic threads, they just won't have their own little box and they probably won't be as prevalent. But forms and threads will still exist.

 

For Free.

 

Lets not pretend that the site will suddenly stop catering for chatterers and people who would all wear rainbow bands for work avoidance. It will just be different and potentially have more bike related topics.

 

If 30 or 40 people decide they would rather chat elsewhere, then unfortunately that will be the case. There is no cause without effect.

 

It's not a personal thing and I don't think Matt et al are making any decisions fippantly.

 

I haven't written to Raymond to tell him how short sighted and ignorant he is for not selling Matzos anymore. But I will. Next week

[Patchelicious]

Whatever the case is over monetization of a forum never works, there's a limit to what you can extract and pushing it too far past that point starts to kill the community on which it is based.

 

The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous, "Hey guys having vibrant discussions is getting a bit much and not overtly making us money so we thought best to cut them off".

 

I'm looking at this in a purely objective standpoint, Bikehub as a business wouldn't be here without the vibrant forum that it grew around, would it be sustainable and lucrative if that same forum became a shadow of its former self?

 

From my experience the answer is no.

 

All forums are the same, users came for the info and subject help and stayed for the chit chat. Many also read the chit chat despite not engaging in it themselves.

Over monetization of anything never works for long.

 

I get what you are saying but they are not speaking of monetizing the forums, they are speaking of limiting the topics of the free forums.

 

Yes, the Bikehub would not be here without the vibrant discussions, but it is here now. 

Its a standard platform model. Low barrier during growth phase, then once scale has been reached, hopefully critical scale, you switch and recoup the years of investment, capital and time....

 

Telling them they cannot capitalize on that, is the opposite of being objective. 

Look, I'm not overly eager to have the threads removed.

 

Yes there will be customer lost but its a risk they are taking with what they have built, I am sure(hope) that customer elasticity modelling has been done.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Patchelicious

[TNT1]

Wait, as this forum currently stands, it has no moderators other than two staff members? Is that correct?

[Skylark]

 

 

Over monetization of anything never works for long.

 

I get what you are saying but they are not speaking of monetizing the forums, they are speaking of limiting the topics of the free forums.

 

Yes, the Bikehub would not be here without the vibrant discussions, but it is here now.

Its a standard platform model. Low barrier during growth phase, then once scale has been reached, hopefully critical scale, you switch and recoup the years of investment, capital and time....

 

Telling them they cannot capitalize on that, is the opposite of being objective.

Look, I'm not overly eager to have the threads removed.

 

Yes there will be customer lost but its a risk they are taking with what they have built, I am sure(hope) that customer elasticity modelling has been done.

However you frame it the community is starting to impinge on the monetization of the website is what I'm getting. Either because it's distasteful in some regards or taking up too much time.

 

So the solution is seen to be the cutting of the community down to size to accommodate the monetization.

 

Objectively I have not seen that work out well in the past with other forums.

[Patchelicious]

However you frame it the community is starting to impinge on the monetization of the website is what I'm getting. Either because it's distasteful in some regards or taking up too much time.

 

So the solution is seen to be the cutting of the community down to size to accommodate the monetization.

 

Objectively I have not seen that work out well in the past with other forums.

Then my framing is wrong. 

 

I am sure that it hasn't worked out for some forums, I am certainly not claiming it will work here either. 

Many platforms/companies have not successfully transitioned from growth/capital burning to profitable models. 

 

Thing is, its not just a forum, it is evolving into something new, they need to adapt.

Lets hope that they can pivot if they do not get the desired outcomes.

[Skylark]

Lol, reading the op again this whole thread is just a storm in a teacup.

 

All that's needed is more moderators, hand out a few warnings and some ban hammers and things will be ship shape chop chop.

 

Why Matt and co would want to manage the forums on top of running the business side is beyond me.