Poll to choose the new layout structure

Option three seems the most interesting to me, not easy to please everyone 👍🏻 😎

Alan, I read your proposal & the associated discussion thread in detail. Among the choices offered, #3 looks the best to me.

That said, it seems to me that much of this entire discussion & associated choices could be avoided & we could “have our cake & eat it too” if misago simply supported more levels than 2 in the sub-forum structure (I know it doesn’t based on prior discussion with you - could it be modified over time??).

If it did, I’d probably suggest the top-level being (not necessarily in this order) 1) medium/large format (2) mobile [because these 2 are distinct enough from others] and 3) some set of sub-forums for other formats… with the BRANDS organized under these. Given the cool way misago allows us to navigate the thread tree, it seems we’d (mostly) have a good way to look at things thru BOTH the lens of format & the lens of brand. IMHO it would worth changing misago to support this - probably a game-changing way to present the content (said, of course, not knowing how much software dev would be required). Perhaps a pipe-dream… but just sharing what comes to mind.
Cheers!
Jerry

Yep, understood. Perhaps a dev3 to play with at some point down the road that has a play with the suggestion above.
Cheers

... an additional thought I've repeatedly had that would affect forum structure... not sure where else to put this.

I've (for years) read the dialog about how (to some) the equipment doesn't matter and, when looking at a great image, the equipment that took it needn't come to mind. And, further, that many of the best images taken throughout history were taken with equipment that, today, we would consider crappy. [Don't assume I disagree with this before you read further.]

But, it seems to me that, at the most abstract level, photography is about 2 things: (1) the EXPERIENCE of making the image and (2) the END RESULT (the image itself). (Telegraphing where I'm going: shouldn't the forum structure reflect both of these aspects?)

Now, it is clearly the case that the driving-VIEW of the Grand Teton Mts in Wyoming is largely the same, whether one drives by in a 100-year-old Model T Ford, or a new Corvette. But the total EXPERIENCE is certainly different. Part of the EXPERIENCE is certainly the VIEW. But it's also the vehicle... and your interaction with the Mts... and the company you're with... and the dialog... and the weather. Cars are wonderful marvels of engineering... and people love talking about them... so why shouldn't they? Who wants to experience the California Coastal Highway in a clunky old Yugo, eh?

So, while I 100% agree that, when looking at a great image, the equipment that took it needn't come to mind... it seems to me that that mindset is focused only on the END RESULT and (at least partially) it ignores-or-minimizes the EXPERIENCE of taking the image. (Which is not to day that that mindset is bad - not saying that - just pointing out what it's focus is.)

The EXPERIENCE involves "being there", the equipment, the specific subject, your interaction with the subject, etc. Cameras are marvels of engineering... and people love talking about them AND how they use specific cameras/ equipment to "get there". People love the EXPERIENCE of making images. So I think that pushing the site in a direction which minimizes gear is tantamount to pushing the site in a direction which minimizes (at least a significant part of) the EXPERIENCE - and I don't think that would be a good thing. Said differently (rhetorical), how can one create a site about photography while simultaneously minimizing a significant part of the EXPERIENCE (the gear)?

Use or flush at will. Just a few musings. I'm posting not because I think your 3 options minimize gear/ experience - no, not the case. But rather to posit a mindset which IMHO should inform how we proceed with forum structure and other aspects of the site. As I've said before, I think you and Bob have done a great job.

Cheers!
Jerry

Whoa... that was quick! 👍😀 At first glance it looks very busy... because everything is "unrolled". So I'd say I certainly like the experiment, but I'd like to see a variant that gives us both the "format view" and "brand view" that is a bit less busy.

In the Full Frame thread, I see Sigma FF! There is no FF sigma, however, the APS-H format does exist!
And where is the Nikon 1 format?

Alan,
I withdraw my comment about dev3 being busy, given that dev2.AlternateCombinedView shows the real intent of that combined-format-brand view: I think that view is a good candidate that should be entered into the mix of candidates for finalists.
Cheers!
Jerry