you guys really need a dan simmons subforum!

[radu123]

and this isn't a simmons fanboy talking, but his contributions to sci-fi have been potent indeed

hyperion and endymion were huge **** son...

 

[Thadlerian]

I think there's some kind of rule that if five active threads on an author exist at the same time, this author is merited a sub-forum.

Though what rules exist that governs whether a sub-forum should remain, I cannot tell.

Personally, I think this forum might have a tad too many subforums, most of them very sparsely populated and rarely updated, which discourages viewers and posters alike.

But Simmons is a big name in the field, and under the current regime I agree he's deserving of his own subforum.

 

[GOLLUM]

Weeel...in the backroom of Chrons there has been ongoing discussions of a revamp of the author subforum, in fact you'll notice that pretty much all of the author forums are now somewhat active. Watch this space though for further updates......

Your suggested rule of thumb regarding 5 active threads is also a valid one.

Cheers.

 

[clovis-man]

Your suggested rule of thumb regarding 5 active threads is also a valid one.

Were you considering the 5 thread rule as a "suggestion" or as food for thought re doing it differently? I have to admit to sometimes wondering why certain authors are still on the list and others have never jumped through enough hoops to qualify.

 

[j d worthington]

Basically, enough active posting on an author must be in evidence for a subforum to be established; which is why even such important figures as Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or J. G. Ballard don't have their own area yet.

The best way to change that is to start discussions and hope that enough people respond for a decent period. If interest is maintained, then that writer will be awarded a subforum. If not, then to establish such is, to put it bluntly, to clutter up the index page to little purpose....

 

[Culhwch]

I read 'Dan Simmons' in the title as 'Dan Brown' for some reason (blame my less than intimate knowledge of the 'SF' in 'SFF') and thought, Well this isn't going start half a flame war now, is it?

 

[GOLLUM]

Were you considering the 5 thread rule as a "suggestion" or as food for thought re doing it differently? I have to admit to sometimes wondering why certain authors are still on the list and others have never jumped through enough hoops to qualify.

J.D. more or less summed it up. It realy requires a sustained momentum of interest over multiple threads from a number of users to have half a chance so to speak...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Were you considering the 5 thread rule as a "suggestion" or as food for thought re doing it differently?

The 5 thread rule has been in effect for at least three or four years now, and is, in fact, written on the index page. I don't think it is going to change, because it has proved to be a pretty accurate test of whether enough people are really interested enough to make a new forum worth while.

Some of the inactive forums ... there was enough initial interest, but that interest died. Or they were created when the site was new, for authors somebody thought deserved a forum. Or they were started because the author became a member and it was thought that their presence would keep people interested in discussing their books. If nothing else, they serve to demonstrate why sub-forums should not be created as a badge of honor, or just because somebody thought it would be a good idea. They stay there because no one has the time to take them away.

The bottom line is this: Author forums are meant to be a convenient way of organizing threads so that fans of a particular author can find them. If there aren't any active threads to organize, there's no reason to start a new forum. It's not a matter of jumping through hoops, it's just showing that if a forum existed it's likely that people would continue to post in it.

 

[clovis-man]

The bottom line is this: Author forums are meant to be a convenient way of organizing threads so that fans of a particular author can find them. If there aren't any active threads to organize, there's no reason to start a new forum. It's not a matter of jumping through hoops, it's just showing that if a forum existed it's likely that people would continue to post in it.

Thanks for the additional info. It does explain some of the reasons the list looks the way it does.

 

[radu123]

interesting

also, could i have some money? i'm cold and very hungry

 

[Brian G Turner]

I now have an active Dan Simmons tag, so if you click the link in his name you'll find other discussions of his works. I'm beginnig to think that this way will work better than a subforum.

 

[AndrewT]

Though what rules exist that governs whether a sub-forum should remain, I cannot tell.

Personally, I think this forum might have a tad too many subforums, most of them very sparsely populated and rarely updated, which discourages viewers and posters alike.

The author subforums are one of the things that I really like about this site. I can go straight to the authors that I like and also learn something about ones I'm not so familiar with. The only thing I would change is that I would split them into categories. Four would do the job. Classic sci-fi, classic fantasy, contemporary sci fi, contemporary fantasy. Use 1990 as the cut-off. But the way it is set up is fine too where all the names appear as links in no particular order. To make them more populated just go and post more comments. I usually have been when I finish a book.

 

[soulsinging]

I now have an active Dan Simmons tag, so if you click the link in his name you'll find other discussions of his works. I'm beginnig to think that this way will work better than a subforum.

I like this idea. Personally, I always felt the sub forums were a little underwhelming. Most of them tend to be pretty quiet (other than maybe the GRRM one, which I would say could/should remain for spoiler reasons).