Do you think there should be a separate forum for the 987 model? Await your comments.
New site for 987?
- Thread starter john holmes
- Start date
In which case why fragment the useful information even more?
Considering the 986/987/996/997 are basically the same car (at the component/electronics/engine level) then it makes more sense to me to combine the forums, and take advantage of having all the information in the same place.
The only logical reason to keep them seperate is for Register Events - and the Boxster register is not planned to split to form a 987 Boxster register.
I know where it would be logical to put it... But I wouldn't bet on it [&:][
]
]
I assume a similar thread was fired-off when the 996 guys added the 997; I would prefer a single place but since the precedence has already been set, splitting it would make the entire forum remain consistence especially for new members. I think it is a matter of time that a 987 will be needed which will hopefully include the Cayman (taking the logic that both the 996 and 997 also cover their respective Carbiolets) but the marketing guys at Porsche AG will not be too happy as they want to tag the Cayman as a baby 911 (for now)...
Anyway, I subscribe to all as, some of you have mentioned and I also agree that, there are a lot of issues/discussions which are always relevant to all 996/997/986/987.
Anyway, I subscribe to all as, some of you have mentioned and I also agree that, there are a lot of issues/discussions which are always relevant to all 996/997/986/987.
Another thing to bear in mind is that there are few of us that actually know the model number (986/987).
To most owners, it is simply a "Boxster" (and to many, a "Boxter"...[&:] )
To most owners, it is simply a "Boxster" (and to many, a "Boxter"...[&:] )
Delbox,
What are your reasons for wanting a seperate forum then?
My viewpoint is that the information is 90% common to both, and register events, news etc would need to be duplicated accross 2 forums if they are "segregated".
If there are valid, sound resons for seperate forums then please let us know what they are? []
Come on, don't be shy! []
What are your reasons for wanting a seperate forum then?
My viewpoint is that the information is 90% common to both, and register events, news etc would need to be duplicated accross 2 forums if they are "segregated".
If there are valid, sound resons for seperate forums then please let us know what they are? [
]Come on, don't be shy! [
]
Delbox
New member
Mark,
Firstly, in response to your earlier message. Given that there have been only 2 iterations of the Boxster - 986 and 987, I suggest that most - if not all Boxster owners - know which version they have; if not, then applying your logic to the 911 fraternity, there must be total confusion! []
However, if we had followed the course of action that your message late yesterday evening intimates then we'd have one forum addressing not only the 2 Boxster versions but also the current and penultimate 911 series.
I agree that there is some commonality between the Boxster versions, but that equally applies to the 996 and 997 - each of which has a separate forum; however, there is much commonality too between the 987 and 997. The issues of plastic and glass rear screen, Smart Tops etc pervade the current Boxster forum - together with other issues that do not affect the 987. Likewise, there will be 987 issues that do not affect the previous model - for example the subject of TMC. [8|]
I agree that Register issues could be difficult to manage - if only to avoid duplication of effort; however, a bit of lateral thinking would suggest that a common Register subset of each forum - 986 and 987 - could be accessed through a 'sticky' thread at the head of each.
However, frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not the forum is split - but John asked the question; therefore, believing that there must have been a catalyst for him to raise the issue, I made the effort to respond. []
While the debate rages ([] / []), I'll continue to sift out solely 986 issues and visit the 997 forum for matters that affect the 987 as well. []
Del []
Firstly, in response to your earlier message. Given that there have been only 2 iterations of the Boxster - 986 and 987, I suggest that most - if not all Boxster owners - know which version they have; if not, then applying your logic to the 911 fraternity, there must be total confusion! [
]However, if we had followed the course of action that your message late yesterday evening intimates then we'd have one forum addressing not only the 2 Boxster versions but also the current and penultimate 911 series.
I agree that there is some commonality between the Boxster versions, but that equally applies to the 996 and 997 - each of which has a separate forum; however, there is much commonality too between the 987 and 997. The issues of plastic and glass rear screen, Smart Tops etc pervade the current Boxster forum - together with other issues that do not affect the 987. Likewise, there will be 987 issues that do not affect the previous model - for example the subject of TMC. [8|]
I agree that Register issues could be difficult to manage - if only to avoid duplication of effort; however, a bit of lateral thinking would suggest that a common Register subset of each forum - 986 and 987 - could be accessed through a 'sticky' thread at the head of each.
However, frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not the forum is split - but John asked the question; therefore, believing that there must have been a catalyst for him to raise the issue, I made the effort to respond. [
]While the debate rages ([
] / []), I'll continue to sift out solely 986 issues and visit the 997 forum for matters that affect the 987 as well. []Del [
]
Guest
New member
I'd keep them together.
You could go crazy with features warranting forum separation like face lifts and other MY updates. Not worth it IMHO as the number of posts is not posing an administrative problem and the benefits of having them in one place surpass the advantages gained by separation. Just my 2c.
You could go crazy with features warranting forum separation like face lifts and other MY updates. Not worth it IMHO as the number of posts is not posing an administrative problem and the benefits of having them in one place surpass the advantages gained by separation. Just my 2c.
JCB..
Non-member
Basically because Derek Sharp wanted to return to the fold.
As for splitting the Register - it's hard enough getting people to get off their arses with one Boxster Register let alone two.
With both 996/997 and 986/987 there just isn't enough technical difference between the cars to warrant the two. Just IMHO of course.
JCB..
JCB..
Non-member
Forum: a place on the Internet where people can leave messages or discuss particular subjects with other people at the same time:
Derek
Why do you always go off the deep end when someone has a different viewpoint to you?
This was what John asked and this is what most people have responded to. I wouldn't like to see the Boxster community fragment myself but I'm quite happy to listen to reasoned arguments as to why it should.
The major hurdle isn't whether or not the cars are x% the same but it is finding another Nic Doczi, Mark Bennett or Derek Sharp to run it. It takes a lot of commitment and patience to be an RS - I tried it for a year and I couldn't combine it with a demanding job.
JCB..
How about one Boxster Register on the forum and then sub-forums's for 986 and 987. In this way those that are confused by the model number designation would at first go to the 'Boxster' forum heading and could then decide for themsleves which sub-forum they belong to. A heading on each could help those less technically minded; eg. 'Model years 1996 to 2004...' etc.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Helen Goff
No.1 Poster
don't see any advantages to splitting the Boxster register into 986/987 when we have people with the wealth of knowlege of Mark and JCB on these cars and who are willing and able to give up their time we should be supporting them.
as it is the Boxster register sometimes struggle to get anough supporters to take part in events, so to fragment the register just wouldn't work IMHO.
as for the Caymen, well if Porsche had called it (as they should have done) a Boxster coupe, then i think its rightful place would have been in the Boxster register, unfortunatly Porsche have opted to call it the Caymen ([:'(])so i think it should have its own register purely because its not called a Boxster i thoerfore as a owner of a Caymen wouldn't be interested in sticking a Boxster register sticker on my car or buying Boxster register t-shirts for myself.
as it is the Boxster register sometimes struggle to get anough supporters to take part in events, so to fragment the register just wouldn't work IMHO.
as for the Caymen, well if Porsche had called it (as they should have done) a Boxster coupe, then i think its rightful place would have been in the Boxster register, unfortunatly Porsche have opted to call it the Caymen ([:'(])so i think it should have its own register purely because its not called a Boxster i thoerfore as a owner of a Caymen wouldn't be interested in sticking a Boxster register sticker on my car or buying Boxster register t-shirts for myself.
Helen Goff
No.1 Poster
like all good ideas simple but, Brilliant.....well done Peter
Delbox
New member
John,
I don't 'go off the deep end'; it's just that every time I make a reasoned and articulate comment, someone from the PCGB hierarchy - in one form or another - chooses to counter it.
My message on the 20th, in response to Mark's comments, led me to believe that this was a lost cause; so, to save people time, I thought that it would be prudent to lock the thread. Whenever moderators, ROs etc get involved in the early stages of discussion, it inevitiably influences the flow of discussion: they hold the keys to change and, if are seen to be unsupportive from the outset, cause the natural debate to move in a specific direction. Let the members 'discuss' - but don't deny evolution or innovation; see what they want and then add in any constraints that may limit what is possible - once their prefered course of action is known.
I could go on - but I'll only receive some other curt comments. So, I'm going to give up contributing to this sub-forum; I'll lurk with interest and play an active role on other forums - on this site and externally - where my views are, at least, considered, properly!
Sorry if you think that I've 'gone off the deep end' - again![]
Derek
I don't 'go off the deep end'; it's just that every time I make a reasoned and articulate comment, someone from the PCGB hierarchy - in one form or another - chooses to counter it.
My message on the 20th, in response to Mark's comments, led me to believe that this was a lost cause; so, to save people time, I thought that it would be prudent to lock the thread. Whenever moderators, ROs etc get involved in the early stages of discussion, it inevitiably influences the flow of discussion: they hold the keys to change and, if are seen to be unsupportive from the outset, cause the natural debate to move in a specific direction. Let the members 'discuss' - but don't deny evolution or innovation; see what they want and then add in any constraints that may limit what is possible - once their prefered course of action is known.
I could go on - but I'll only receive some other curt comments. So, I'm going to give up contributing to this sub-forum; I'll lurk with interest and play an active role on other forums - on this site and externally - where my views are, at least, considered, properly!
Sorry if you think that I've 'gone off the deep end' - again![
]Derek
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
