Fabulous Forum

nbrandt

This forum is fabulous and full of tremendous, time saving and money saving tips. 

An observation - as a T@B 400 owner I find that the 400's are so unique with their design and equipment that I was wondering if the forum couldn't be divided into a 320 and 400 section? Even as the T@G is separated from the T@B section and I would imagine that there will be many differences between the T@B and the new larger trailer.  Just a thought.

nbrandt

2018 T@B 400

(corrected spelling of forum on the subject line to help with future searches—Verna, T@B Admin)

jgram2

@nbrandt or at the very least, members can do as we’ve done and include the year and model in their sig line so we know whether we have pertinent knowledge. Though that’s never stopped me from throwing my 2 cents in, like right now for example.😬

Verna

@nbrandt, since most of the major components are the same, nüCamp agreed with the Admins that only one forum was needed. The T@G forum is actually for any teardrop, although T@G owners are the most prevalent. 

Beside that, both Admins own 400’s, after both having owned T@B 320’s, Silver Shadows and Teardrops. The Mods both own 320’s, so we’re all well versed in our knowledge and experience.  

Dalehelman

I would not mind seeing a poll on this subject.

DenisP

IMHO, I believe it would be a loss to divide the content as most topics and discussion strings have crossover to every Tab owner.  While all systems are not shared,many are and the depth of experience with all systems, camping methods and different approaches to issues or improvements are invaluable to all.  While there may be posts which are not relevant to me, it is my decision to pass over them, but it surprising how much I have learned from reading posts dealing with issues from other models.  If the forum were split, I would miss out on important posts as it would be unlikely I would review both forums for content.

Sharon_is_SAM

@Dalehelman, I think at this point it is a good idea to include 320 or 400 as appropriate in their Discussion title and to HAVE a signature line including the member’s TaB model.  This would be helpful to members helping members and to allow members to sort through what they wish to read.  

ScottG

Ditto Sharon_is_SAM's point. I'm seeing an increasing number of inquiries that indicate neither the model nor the year of the T@B in question. Even the year can be important as components (such as Alde  and fridge) are upgraded or even changed entirely in later models.

The more details you can provide , the more accurate and forthcoming the advice will be.

Marceline

It might be helpful to have a T@B400 "Category" for stuff that's specific to that model. For that matter, maybe a Clamshell category as well. 
@Verna @ScottG

jgram2

So far, I count DM T@Bs, T@B, T@B CS, T@B CSS, T@B Outback, T@B 320, T@B  Boondock, T@B 400, T@B 400 Boondock, T@B Boondock Lite and models like Q, U, Tabitha, Sofetiel. Some, like the Outback and Boondock, are only name changes, some are only different in layout. Then coming down the road is the Avia, and the Cirrus is here. I already have trouble selecting the appropriate category to start a conversation and think it would make it cumbersome to split out the main current T@Bs. But. I’m easily confused and that won’t change whatever is decided. I can see how the Avia and Cirrus will need separate forums.

I still believe the best way to handle proliferating models is to 1) post a question with your year and model in the title or 2) create your signature line to include the year and model.

Sharon_is_SAM

I think if we want to be able to effectively search for discussions with specific information, we all need title our discussions with a focused title specific to the question including identifying the model.  

Marceline

jgram2 said:

So far, I count DM T@Bs, T@B, T@B CS, T@B CSS, T@B Outback, T@B 320, T@B  Boondock, T@B 400, T@B 400 Boondock, T@B Boondock Lite and models like Q, U, Tabitha, Sofetiel. Some, like the Outback and Boondock, are only name changes, some are only different in layout. Then coming down the road is the Avia, and the Cirrus is here. I already have trouble selecting the appropriate category to start a conversation and think it would make it cumbersome to split out the main current T@Bs. But. I’m easily confused and that won’t change whatever is decided. I can see how the Avia and Cirrus will need separate forums.

I still believe the best way to handle proliferating models is to 1) post a question with your year and model in the title or 2) create your signature line to include the year and model.

1. I don't know why you're bringing up the Avia and Cirrus. They're not T@Bs, so that's purely a red herring.
2. Since you don't have a 400 or clamshell, I think that it would be pretty easy for you to eliminate the 400 & CS categories from consideration when you're posting something. 
3. I haven't suggested a separate category for every single model of T@B ever made. I've suggested separate categories for the 400 and the CS because they are significantly different from the "regular" T@Bs in certain respects, and there are issues (2way fridge battery mgt, outdoor kitchen) that keep cropping up that are specific to those models. If someone thinks that another version is different enough that it warrants a separate category, they can ask for it. I can see an argument for a separate category for the Dutchman T@Bs.
4. I think that separate categories for stuff specific to these models would make it easier for people to browse through past discussions and information specific to these models. Issues like the 2way fridge/battery management, weatherproofing the outdoor kitchen, and mods to allow back-to-front sleeping. It would make the forum more useful for the people who own those models and it would not make the forum less useful to anyone else.
5. Information contained in signature lines is not used in the search function, so signature line data doesn't help anyone search the forum for past posts about an issue specific to the 400 or CS. Also, the signature line doesn't display in the mobile app.

ScottG

Dalehelman said:

I would not mind seeing a poll on this subject.

We actually did a poll on this topic, sort of...  About a year or so ago when the mods were discussing some organizational updates to the categories, we polled users on how they used the category feature.

The poll was removed once it had served its purpose, but IIRC the general result was that most members didn't really use the category feature all that much.

@Dalehelman (or anyone else), if you'd like to see a poll on something, go ahead and set one up. I do not believe there is any restriction on who can create a poll.

jgram2

Marceline said

1. I don't know why you're bringing up the Avia and Cirrus. They're not T@Bs, so that's purely a red herring
5. Information contained in signature lines is not used in the search function, so signature line data doesn't help anyone search the forum for past posts about an issue specific to the 400 or CS. Also, the signature line doesn't display in the mobile app.

@Marceline I had no intention of throwing red herrings-I was enumerating the Nücamp products as I remember them. My apologies. I do open a thread and look at the title for specific model, then the sig line, then the body of the comment/question for that information. Of course I’ll go with whatever the majority deems most useful. 

Sharon_is_SAM

@Marceline, I agree and did not mean that a signature line would be used for a search.  Yes, it is unfortunate that the signature line does not appear on phones - but it does appear on tablets and PCs.  I think @BrianZ had a good idea of incorporating the TaB model as part of the member picture.

BrianZ

Thanks, @Sharon_is_SAM, ya mean like this..

Sharon_is_SAM

I really see the utility of that now @BrianZ.  Folks can still include a picture in their signature line, too.  Does your icon show up on the phone?

BrianZ

Yes, it does show on my Android phone - I rarely use anything else.  I don't normally see signatures though; however, I can select the "Desktop site" option in the Chrome browser settings to show signatures - it shows more details, but readability suffers IMO (tiny fonts etc).

Sharon_is_SAM

@BrianZ, can you make me one?  2017 T@B 320 CSS.  I am partial to blue😀

BrianZ

Sure! 
Blue trim on silver or white?

Sharon_is_SAM

Silver.

ChanW

Heh! I tried years ago to promote the idea of titles that are useful... 

Too often folks like to be creative with their titles, and use them as a 'tease', to draw readers into reading the thread. 

Maybe the mods could be the ones to create the (more useful) titles, after the fact. Kind of like they sometimes will split a thread off, and start a new thread.

Sharon_is_SAM said:

I think if we want to be able to effectively search for discussions with specific information, we all need title our discussions with a focused title specific to the question including identifying the model.  

ScottG

ChanW said:

...
Maybe the mods could be the ones to create the (more useful) titles, after the fact. Kind of like they sometimes will split a thread off, and start a new thread.

...

Yeah, that's gonna happen.  ;-)

Sharon_is_SAM

@ChanW I know I have made minor adjustments and I suspect other Mods/Admins have done in the past.  We do make sure that new Discussions make their way to the correct category.  I understand where you are coming from ChanW.  I suspect the Discussion title will "pop out" more if you are one to look through the categories, but I think that the search engine will knab any word that is part of the search, so it looks into the body of the text.  Not sure how the Google search directions itself.  I think that most members don't use those categories to find much after they have an established knowledge base.  I could be wrong.  I am most concerned with discussion titles that do not reflect the actual question or don't give enough info for members to give advice.

ChanW

But @ScottG, we have great faith in our mods' abilities! 

I agree @Sharon_is_SAM. 

I tend to skim over all the categories' titles, looking for ones that I'm interested in. I usually skip titles that don't mean anything to me. 

But that's just me, and everyone's different!

I never use the categories, unless I'm starting a thread of course. Too 'fraid I might miss something! 

So to get back on the O.P. topic, if the 400 were separated out, into a forum I had to check separately (because it doesn't really apply to my Tab), I'd probably miss it.

Marceline

Sharon_is_SAM said:

I really see the utility of that now @BrianZ.  Folks can still include a picture in their signature line, too.  Does your icon show up on the phone?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, profile pics aren't any more searchable than signatures.
If you want to make it easy for people to find old threads with useful information that is specifically related to the T@B 400 or CS, the solution is to create categories for them.
I honestly don't understand the resistance. 

ScottG

ChanW said:

But @ScottG, we have great faith in our mods' abilities! 
...

Thanks, @ChanW! But it isn't my lack of ability that's gonna' keep that from happening.  :-)