At this point it’s Schadenfreude, if not glee. I’m way past lamentation.
The only thing I miss is regional board action.
Aloha,
Kaleo
1 Like
Call it whatever you want.
I’m over it.
Yeah, I haven’t been able to find that horse’s pulse for a while now either.
1 Like
Regional boards are the hardest to build. We got decent SF and Boston discussions because of migration of active users (the content) and the EBX and Globe articles (the eyes). UK, NJ, Houston there are active users but can use more eyes. NY we have eyes (10% of site traffic) but not active users. The rest are relatively quiet. We can all discuss home cooking if we cook but there are only a small subset of users from region Y, i.e. no critical mass. I’ve been reading up on creating critical mass on social network (we are a social network) so I have been thinking about this.
Now that we are past the initial migration and there is no more press coverage, and no ‘big group’ looking for a new home, the question is how the site and the users can ‘market’ themselves to the larger food obsessed crowd to create that viral effect and get to critical mass:
- First, some content, so that newbies who come will have something to read and potentially respond to- Our own posts, getting bloggers/ food writers to cross post here, discussing food reviews elsewhere, etc.
- Two, get these content in front of others, share the posts on social media, with friends, tweet to people with clout, e.g. food writers, so we get more eyes on the forum
That’s how Youtube got started by having people share their videos with friends to create a viral effect, and GroupOn and FB got one small market into critical mass before moving onto others- Groupon, get one city right at a time. FB- Harvard, then Ivy League, then other schools, finally public. We are different of course since we are not a company like them, and we have no budget, but we can certainly borrow workable tricks from successful networks.
I think there are appetite for discussions like ours since the crowd got dispersed at the old playground, either this year, or years ago, its a matter of looking for them. There are many geographical area where this void hasn’t been filled yet.
We got a core group of highly active users here. Any members we attract from now on will probably revert back to the forum golden rule of average of 1% super user that post often, 9% of active users and 90% of lurkers. My opinion is that we have a great core group here that we can really build something upon but we have to attract a lot more people who may or may not be from the old playground.
The membership growth has been slowing in recent couple of weeks after the initial spotlight. One can argue that the old playground unintentionally provided this playground a 400-user start with the redesign. But the rest is up to us and so the importance of that ‘viral effect’…
The additional complication? Quality of posts matter so we can’t ‘viral’ to anyone either.
4 Likes
I used to play on both egullet and Chowhound’s UK boards. Neither was at all successful in any serious growth. And that in spite of egullet then featuring amongst its contributor base the guy who is probably our best known national restaurant review journalist - and who would periodically give it a mention in his columns. And, indeed, also including a couple of Michelin starrred chefs. In truth, I really am at a loss as to know how to grow that board when so many folk who might have commented on restaurants have now gone off to write their own blogs, play of Facebook groups, etc.
Any word from steve h? 'Course they were moving to St. Simons or some such.
Why do you think that even with the prominent and chefs that egullet didn’t get traction? do you think it has anything to do with the address not being .uk?
Shall we appeal to any bloggers, FB groups, etc.? Its not easy to write a blog also and have an audience…
I’m not at all sure why egullet diidnt play well. Maybe its fairly elitest stance of requiring you to write your “worthy statement” before being able to join put folk off. I can understand why Chowhound wouldn’t run. First “chow” isnt really a word used in British English, so it immediately marks it down as being foreign and, secondly, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, CH never tried to operate their international boards as other than somewhere that Americans could get restaurant tips from other Americans. The fact that some Brits started to play there as well was, I reckon, a minority interest. For example, its Spain board is pretty much exclusively just that - and isnt found by the hundreds of thousands of Brits who live in the country or the millions of Brits who visit the country for holiday.
I’d suspect an appeal to bloggers isnt going to be that successful. You write a restaurant blog because you want to have complete editorial control. You can’t be challenged in what you write. And, of course, if you’re a halfway decent blogger, you’re going to be getting picked up by the PR industry and get all those freebie invites to new restaurants.
Facebook groups may be a better route - there’s a more of a discussion nature in that format. For example,our friend linguafood operates a FB “What’s for Dinner” group. I’m not a member but I believe it to have been successful in capturing a goodly number of ex-contributors at CH. Now I know that some post here as well (or maybe instead) but food/restaurant FB groups like that are a good source. As might be local foody forums - although I suspect the number are declining, as the genre is generally losing favour to those other outlets.
2 Likes
As suggested above, I completely agree.
Are there folks here to take this on in a more assertive manner? I’m pretty neanderthal when it comes to using much of mainstream social media.
This is the difficult fact to add to the equation. I think the Site you’ve created is a fantastic one to use. Frankly, it’s the reason my content is here not back there. I think it’s safe to assume I’m not the only one who feels that way. It’s structured with features for the 10% and it is a vast improvement on the CH 2.0 model, from that point of view.
The thing is, the CH 2.0 was not designed for the 10%. They knew that golden rule when creating it and designed a product better suited to the masses. Hell, this is the manifestation of the philosophical change I’ve been blabbering about for a couple months now. It was just another step on a path they were clearly following for some time, but it finally crossed over into a foreign land.
Honestly, I’m not confident in any particular idea as to how to reconcile these disparate interests. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s even worthwhile or necessary to do so. I can analogize it to creating tax policy - there quite possibly may be no way to make everyone truly satisfied. Do you wind up going with an approach that winds up making no one happy or just adopt an approach that is suited to pleasing your base?
I suppose, to come back around, that’s where my “Content Counts” mantra comes from - I’m just gonna keep banging the pots and pans until I make enough noise to attract attention. If someone else has a way to amplify it, they have my sincere blessing to do so. Nevertheless, I’m still wondering if maybe Hungry Onion should simply challenge the notion of such a golden rule. Maybe the 90/10 split notion is a flawed theory based on insufficient data from a nascent medium? Maybe it’s better to have a slightly smaller group that’s a 50/50 split and, in it’s own way, healthier because of it? I mean, I’d rather have a spirited discussion of the carried interest loophole with a room full of tax lawyers than try to explain regressive structures to someone who doesn’t even have to file a return.
I’ll stop with the stream of consciousness, but have one additional question. [quote=“hungryonion, post:226, topic:684”]
Quality of posts matter so we can’t ‘viral’ to anyone either.
[/quote]
What the hell does that mean? I’m not sure I get the “‘viral’ to anyone” concept.
The last time anyone gave me a viral I was in the Dr’s office int he morning getting a shot of penicillin in a very sensitive area.
While I would tend to agree with you, I think that our shared opinion is skewed as our perspective is of the 10%. I believe for a online business model, admittedly one that I know very little about, that it’s the 90% (the lurkers) which represents the revenue engine. The 10% provides the material that the 90% views and then “clicks” on the advertising which supports the site. (assuming eventually this will require other funding besides Sampson’s generosity) As you noted, I think Chow decided they had enough archived merchandise to offer the 90% they shrugged off their current 10% base figuring there would be enough future attrition of contributors to add just “enough” new material without the headache of putting up with many of the loud mouths. Just my opinion.
I don’t know what happened at Chow that seemed to scare many of the Chef’s away, but I know several lurked. (I know was personally chastised by one 
) but why not offer them a home here? Create an “Ask The Experts” section for Chef’s or industry professionals to share and highlight their expertise! I can’t help but think of the infamous Field of Dreams; “If you build it they will come”…I think if you create a forum especially designed for Chef’s, and we are able to attract them, that will be a natural draw for the 90%.
Anywho…I am not a very tech savvy person so I’m not a valued asset for trying to help expand this via tech, but I would suggest starting a Facebook page. Obviously there are plenty of eyes there, seems like a natural way to help get word out and direct traffic here.
1 Like
Some further, hopefully relevent, comments on the UK boards of egullet and CH (before their demise).
CH - the busier of the two. Much of the traffic coming from North American tourists visiting London, asking for recommendations, posting their feedback. A few Brits, mainly London based. Places mentioned tended to be a few of the same old small group of “well known” or, often, the very, very casual places. Traffic about anywhere else in the country coming from a very small number of posters and rarely any discusssion about places mentioned.
Egullet - small group of regular posters, mainly fellow Brits. Folk eating at all levels of restaurant from the the casual pub lunch to the Michelin 3* meal. A wide geography from the regulars - these were people either based in various parts of the country or, certainly, visited places other than London. So, for example, if I mentioned somehwere in my own region, it was a good chance someone else would know about it, even if not eaten there.
FWIW, I always found the egullet discussion more interesting probably because I rarely eat in London but, when I do, the places I might want to consider were being discussed there. I have, for example, no interest in reading about a casual neighbourhood south asian places, as that’s the sort of food I’d regularly eat in my home area and not what i want to eat on a visit to the capital.
1 Like
He is fine…as we have spoke off site…
1 Like
“Quality of posts” is really the most important thing, isn’t it? That is what makes people with long-term interest in food and better-than-average knowledge of food culture keep coming back and sharing/discussing/enlightening.
4 Likes
For quite a few of us, CH and places like eG are useful in different ways. Partially the software used, partially the “info. vs discussion” bent. However, personally, on the Invision software discussion/debate side, I’ve always found mouthfulsfood.com to be better than eG on the restaurant front and I think that the London and Rest of England board on that site is livelier.
As for the general issue of growing this board, I do think that we all need to recognize that food boards, in general, are not a growth area & I don’t think there are that many new, unaffiliated people who are going to join and regularly participate on any board. Nor are there many chefs who see the need to spend time doing this. If this site (& FTC for that matter) cannot sustain itself on the # of folks (give or take some) currently on board, I think the future is grim. I would recommend that those of us who are here spend as much time making this a useful resource as possible so that those involved on other boards become active here in addition to where they currently are (as opposed to leaving where they’re now participating). For me, I’m here, I’ll participate, but I aint burning any other bridges either. I think that’s true of many of the current CH, MF, eG & other board members, as well as the Yelp, TripAdvisor, Serious Eats, Eater.com & other users.
1 Like
Steve,
Are you saying that you feel there is an assumption that you are expected to burn a bridge(s)? Just out of curiosity, I’m not sure how to take that comment. Thanks.
Steve
I’ve made similar comments about the likely future of the discussion board format. I’ve seen a number of local UK ones go to the wall in the last couple of years. As mentioned, eGullet’s UK board has been moribund for some while but I’d hardly think that mouthfulsfood.com is doing any better. There’s only been a total of 10 UK threads with any action at all during 1915 and we’ve already done loads better than that here, with 42…
Oh all I meant was that its easier for Facebook to become viral because the only requirement is that I am a human being to join FB. For here, I have to be also somewhat interested in talking and reading about food, so the ‘addressable market’ becomes instantly much smaller.
Oh yes I agree with you that an ideal size for this community should be much smaller than Chowhound (I think they said they have more than >1M users). They have to grow bigger at all costs because they need to be profitable. I was just saying that I think we haven’t quite reached that size yet where we have a sustaining membership base over the longer term, once the initial excitement tapers off.
Oh yes- to me its always better to have a 50/50 split. It’s a bit of a challenge to id the potential active users that we should be inviting over, if there is a way to get a hold of them, that is. Easier of course if people know people and the site spreads via word of mouth.
Nope. Only meant that I’ve added HO to the places I participate in & hope for the best.
Ok, good. Thank you for clarifying.
I basically agree. I don’t think any of the sites are doing well & it’s certainly not worth debating whether any are marginally better than others. That’s pretty much why I tend to look in on just about all (although MF is pretty much my most used site).
