Why "categories" instead of "boards"?

[Robert Lauriston]

The standard term is "board" or "forum." "Category" seems like misuse of the word to me.

It's as ill-conceived an idea as the bizarre fonts, lack of contrast, and massive white space.

[John Francis]

"Boards" is geek speak, short for bulletin boards, which is what online forums used to be called back in the '80s. But they're hardly ever called bulletin boards or BBSes now. Old-line geeks like me have been way outnumbered by non-techie folks, and "boards" is just a relic.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling "boards" by another name. And I have no problem with "categories," which is quite clear. "Forums" is more common, perhaps, but less explicit.

[Ruth Lafler]

"Categories" is not clear, IMHO. A category could be anything. As I noted before, "videos," "blogs" and "recipes" are all examples of categories that are listed on the same bar as "my saved categories." That's proof that the word "category" is being used to mean a specific type of category that's undefined in its context: you wouldn't know that specific meaning is unless it's explained to you or you already have experience using the site. It fails the basic test of a word by not communicating its meaning without additional information.

And as you noted, "categories" is not only unspecific, it's not one of the words traditionally used to denote this specific type of category, i.e. "message board," "discussion board" or "forum." I don't see any benefit to abandoning a specific term for one that is vague, at best. People who are smart enough to learn a new usage of the word "category" are smart enough to learn the term "board" or "forum."

[Servorg]

But to what good end, Ruth. Are you of the belief that using the term category rather than board or forum is driving away potential posters? One quickly gets the lay of the land here after hanging around a bit and lurking to see how and what folks post what they do on the various boards/categories/forums. Perhaps some of the charm here is the quirky nature of our community and its "categories"?

[Ruth Lafler]

I personally don't believe in change for change's sake. To what end the change? That's time and energy that could have been spent on some of the functional problems with the redesign!

[carolinadawg]

Absolutely correct, not to mention that clarity is it's own end. There's nothing fun or quirky about confusion.

[Breadcrumbs]

FWIW, I believe that "My Boards" was far clearer in terms of describing the items I've saved to my profile. "My Categories" could be anything. While I have found myself saying, "I contribute to "x" boards or threads" (on Chowhound or elsewhere), I can't think of an instance where I'd say oh...by the way, I contribute to these categories"

Is this my biggest issue w the re-design? Absolutely not.

Do I have any idea why this change was made? Absolutely not. And I think that's the problem.

Change is never easy and good change managers engage stakeholders by explaining what problem they are trying to solve in making the change.

I believe what folks have been saying, on this thread and others in Site Talk is....help us understand why you've felt it necessary to do thus or so...we just don't get it.

[John Francis]

I'll say only that if the aim is to make Chowhound more inviting to new members, including those who are not into computers and don't know the jargon or care to learn it, the meaning of "category" is clearer, more meaningful than "board." "Forum" would be even clearer, but hey, I'm not making the decisions around here. :-)

If we don't care about attracting new members and just want to go on talking among ourselves, then of course no change of any kind is ever necessary.

[carolinadawg]

Category isn't clearer and more meaningful than board, by a long shot, imo.

[carolinadawg]

As always, context is crucial. In this context, "categories" is nonsensical.

[Servorg]

Since the boards are loosely grouped or categorized I still have trouble seeing what is so problematic with using the term.

[carolinadawg]

There's nothing "loose" about "Manhattan", "Philadelphia", etc.

[Servorg]

Sure there is. Each one is a subset or "category" of a larger surrounding area.

[carolinadawg]

The word "subset" implies greater specificity, which is the opposite of "loose". In any event, Manhattan, like Philadelphia, refers to a very specific place. As Ruth Lafler points out below, it makes no sense to refer to a specific place as a "category".

[Servorg]

The category is restaurants in major metropolitan areas (for example) in the NE United States with populations over 5 million. One such city that would fall into that category is Philadelphia.

While CH doesn't define it's boards that way, it is simply using other parameters to set out those areas it lists as part of its local or regional boards.

I see nothing nonsensical in calling them categories. Just because that is not a word that is generally applied doesn't mean it's not a word that can't be applied.

[carolinadawg]

"The category is restaurants in major metropolitan areas (for example) in the NE United States with populations over 5 million. One such city that would fall into that category is Philadelphia."

No, the "category", as CH is using it, is very specifically Philadelphia. Its not one of many possible cities (which would be a category). It is, in fact, one very specific city. You are attempting to redefine the "category" in order to make it fit your definition.

In any event, this is growing tedious, so I think it best if agree to disagree, as they say.

[Servorg]

Even though Philadelphia is a specific city I feel sure in saying that CH undoubtedly categorizes the boundaries in a totally different way than a standard map would since it also includes New Jersey suburbs. Then you have "categories" like "Mountain States" and "Great Plains" and "Southern New England" (among many others) which aren't cities or states, but rather categories created for this site.

[Ruth Lafler]

Groups of boards can be a catagories, but the individual boards are not catagories in any meaningful sense of the word. "My saved categories" makes no sense at all, since what are being saved are individual boards, not categories of boards. "Topical" is a category; "San Francisco" is not. Furthermore, it's just an example of "fixing" something that wasn't broken to begin with.

[Servorg]

Each one is a category or subset of their larger surrounding area (since they don't cover beyond the categorized region that is assigned to them by the P-t-B).

[Ruth Lafler]

Well, sure, you can twist the word to mean anything you want -- but if you have to explain it, then it's not an effective word. The point being -- they had a perfectly good, specific, word that didn't have to be explained, and that everyone was used to, and they changed it for no apparent reason and for no observable benefit.

[Servorg]

Hi Ruth. As I explained above, my thinking is that CH created these boards using their own criteria. Many of them aren't found anywhere else. So these can very well be seen as categories, ones that CH made up and is using only here. So I don't really think I'm twisting the word to mean something that it's not. But YM Can (and obviously does) Vary. I look at it in the old Chick Hearn "no harm, no foul" manner.

[Robert Lauriston]

The CBS employees who run this site have nothing to do with how it was created and evolved.

Jim Leff and Bob Okumura created Chowhound in 1997. CNET didn't buy it until 2006, and CBS Interactive bought CNET in 2008. Longtime posters have more invested in the site than CBS employees. Reportedly Jim Leff imposed some restrictions on advertising on Chowhound, which may explain why CBS's main goal for the site often seems to be to use it to promote Chow and other CBS content.

[Ruth Lafler]

Plus, they have tabs for things that clearly ARE categories, but are not identified as such, i.e. "videos," "blogs" and "recipes."

[grampart]

"It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide".

[LindaWhit]

I agree.

Categories, to me, implies a group of other *specific* boards that fit into that category. Meaning there will be several individual boards that fit under that category - i.e., New England, which has Greater Boston, Southern New England, and Northern New England - all *individual* boards.

[GH1618]

"Standard"? Can you give me the ANSI number for that?

Of all the criticism levelled against the new design, this one is the least substantive. The owners of this site can use any term they prefer for this function, and in my opinion the term they have chosen is a perfectly good one, consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term. Whether it is used similarly on other sites is of no importance at all. Nobody who is clever enough to use a computer of any kind will be puzzled by this for long.

[Robert Lauriston]

They've been called boards for 15 years. 70,000 of the site's topics include the phrase "this board." 8,000 topics contain "SF Bay Area board." Zero contain "SF Bay Area category." They're called boards in the URLs and HTML source. When moderators move posts from one board to another they add "moved / split from ______ board" to the new topic's title.

Switching to "category" is ridiculous.

[Servorg]

Local or regional board are categorized by location, US, Canada or International vs the separate category of Topical boards. I'm not sure how that is a misuse of the word?

[Robert Lauriston]

"Categories" is the right term for the groups of boards on the /boards/all page (California, Pacific Northwest, etc.)

It's the wrong term for the boards themselves (SF Bay Area, Site Talk, etc.)

The My Categories menu has boards, not categories. CBS staff also misused the term to describe the new Cheese board.

[Servorg]

Again, to my way of thinking, there are categories for the US, Canada, International and finally Topical. Now if you are talking about "Saved Categories" I can see the issue since it ought to be "Saved Boards" more properly. But once one looks at the overall list it is pretty easy to discern how the site is generally laid out...at least to me.