为什么不更经常推荐Discourse作为"社区平台"？

这个问题显然包含很多内容。工具的选择很大程度上取决于使用它的人群的社区/群体的目标。

您的目标是让人们微笑、感觉良好，并进行一些随意的讨论吗？MSTeams、Circle、Instagram、Whatsapp、Discord

您的目标是作为一个群体弄清楚某件事，并能够搜索该讨论并在将来对其进行改进吗？在我看来，Discourse 在这种用例方面无可匹敌。这就是为什么开发者社区纷纷涌向它的原因：Rust、Gitlab、Ruby on Rails、Docker 等等。

我本来想说和 Tristan 一样的话 ，只是换了种说法。

在线社区需要许多人同时与其他许多人互动，才能真正取代实体社区。但你会发现，如今社区的大部分可用工具都只支持一个人与多人互动。例如，多人尝试在一个频道中聊天，但话题却各不相同，这很难扩展。主题和子频道被添加到这些工具中是为了让这变得更容易，但这仍然不允许多人同时参与并无缝地切换不同的对话和话题。

即使工具或功能允许多人同时互动，使用这些工具进行审核、组织和浏览信息和互动也是一种有趣的体验。可发现性和可分享性是另一种有趣的体验。

Discourse 在这方面表现出色，它还允许你真正拥有你的社区及其数据，同时允许你通过插件、主题、主题组件、Webhook、API 以及许多其他功能来扩展你的社区的能力。是的，这些都不是坚如磐石的完美，但目前市面上很少有其他工具能够实现多人到多人的互动，同时还能提供丰富的功能集、自由度和可扩展性。

我们可以通过更好地包装自己来展示这一点，我们知道这一点，并且正在积极地为此努力。正如 Hawk 所说：

所以，请耐心等待，并关注此空间。

我想呼应 @hawk 和 @osioke 的观点——感谢 @oshyan 提出这个问题！

我认为有两个主要问题。

1. 为什么人们不谈论 Discourse？
2. Discourse 是否应该在关于社区平台的对话中被提及？

作为提示，我已经编辑了主题标题以反映这种情绪，以便人们更容易找到讨论。

我先回答第二个问题。

Discourse 是否应该在关于社区平台的对话中被提及？

简而言之——

100% 响亮的“是”！

原因如下。

在线社区归结为一件事：人们围绕他们喜欢的议题与他人建立联系。 句号。

这个想法以多种方式体现，从一群朋友聊天，到创作者建立受众，再到公司将他们的品牌/产品的粉丝聚集在一起。

根据这个标准，Discourse 绝对是一个社区平台。Circle、Discord、WhatsApp，甚至 iMessage 也是如此。

正如 @hawk 和其他人指出的那样，每个工具都有其特定的用途。社区领导者选择工具是基于业务目标和熟悉程度，这只是众多原因中的两个。财富 500 强公司通常需要稳定、成熟、合规且可扩展的平台。相反，创作者需要一个能帮助他们发展受众和业务的平台。

人们选择 Discourse 是因为它符合他们的需求，并且我们对在线社区的愿景与他们的愿景一致。

说完了这些，我们再来谈谈第一个问题。

为什么人们不谈论 Discourse？

我其实并不完全知道这个问题的答案。也许你能帮我！

如果你还不这样做，为什么不在 Meta 以外的空间谈论 Discourse？

我真的很想知道是什么阻碍了你分享，因为我希望我们更多忠实的用户能公开谈论我们。如果你不愿在此回复，请随时给我发私信。

Circle 的品牌定位直接面向创作者，创作者天生就通过谈论事物来赚钱。创作者也喜欢在 Twitter 上活跃，所以你看到大多数支持 Circle 的回应是很自然的。

但我希望看到我们更多的人在外面谈论你们喜爱 Discourse 的地方。如果有什么我可以帮助你们做到这一点，我很乐意听取你们的意见。

对此，我想问的是，社交媒体受众真的是 Discourse 想进入的领域吗？我希望不是。

Discourse 作为创建一个高信号、低噪音平台的最佳工具脱颖而出。而社交媒体大部分是噪音、注意力、参与度、点击量、分心、愤怒、祝贺我。

为什么人们不谈论 Discourse？

我预计随着 Discourse 找到它的黄金受众——我认为它非常接近找到——这种情况会改变。我还要补充一点，如果你看看团队：主要是工程师。其他公司花费大量预算用于品牌营销——将产品变成摇钱树。看看 Stackoverflow 的招聘页面。销售、品牌和营销人员的数量是工程师的 4 倍多。再做一个比较，Algolia——他们一定有一个庞大的销售和推广团队，因为 6 或 7 个完全不同的人分别给我发了 2 到 3 次邮件，自从我试用以来。结果呢？我永远不会使用 Algolia——他们的预算集中在赚钱而不是开发更好的产品。一个好产品总是会自我推销。

Discourse 在工作和学术环境中具有巨大的潜力，只是尚未突破——至今。

此外，团队最近人数翻了一番。这表明有人在谈论 Discourse

这是一个微妙的问题。我们想用我们的品牌形象主导社交渠道吗？绝对不想。但我们确实想鼓励喜欢 Discourse 的人与他人谈论它。这不一定非要在公开的社交渠道上（尽管当然可以）——甚至可以在你的公司内部或与寻找问题解决方案的朋友通电话时进行谈论。

确实如此！人们确实会分享 Discourse。我每天在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上看到许多提及。但如果其他人犹豫这样做，我很想知道原因！

Very happy to see this topic has gotten a good amount of discussion! It has moved quickly, but I’d like to respond to some specific points below, even if the conversation has somewhat moved on since.

Thank you, this is an interesting way of putting it. Can you elaborate more on what you feel “engagement” means?

This is an important point and I definitely do consider it. But remember that a good part of the discussion I am talking about here is taking place among community-building professionals, people whose actual job it is to “build communities”, both in a social and technical sense. Surely those people should know what platforms there are, and what each one is best used for? I know it’s easy enough for me to tell when something is Discourse, even in the best white-labeled implementations, and as a community builder myself (more on the tech than social side), I very often check the platform behind any community I come across that seems to have an interesting design, feature set, etc.

So my remaining question in that context, then, would be: is this a matter of not being aware of Discourse (a problem that could be solved), or of not thinking Discourse is a good solution for their customers/use cases? And in the latter case, are they correct? To my mind the latter situation also deserves more consideration and research. Overall I think there is simultaneously a need to raise awareness of Discourse, and also to make people aware of some of the broader use cases and flexibility of it so that they might see it is indeed an option alongside e.g. Mighty Networks or Circle.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this! You are probably right that “some” associate “community” in this way, but in the spaces I am primarily thinking of, the definition of community is most definitely not so specific as to length or method of interconnection. It is more about overall “amount” of social connection and activity, which can take a variety of forms, both of communications mediums (chat, forum/async, video/audio) and other things (creating/sharing support resources, liking/sharing people’s content, etc.). Discourse can do a good portion of what people often seem to be referring to when they talk about “community”, at least from a technical perspective, but at the same time it seems less in the conversation. So that’s what’s puzzling me.

What makes you conclude “generally because that is what they know…”? Certainly that is true of many people, most notably I would point to anyone using an old-school forum like phpBB. But most of the discussion I am seeing and referring to here (by way of just a single example, but it is representative of many other instances I have personally seen) is coming from people who are experts at, or trying to become experts at, building community. They are very often in fact investigating, testing, and implementing newer solutions than Discourse (Forem, etc), so to my mind it seems less likely that these people are using “only what they know”, and that brings me back to my focus: if these people are actively seeking solutions to their needs, why isn’t Discourse being considered as much as other options? Is it, as I posited in my original topic title, because Discourse is not the same type of platform (in terms of capability/goals) as these others, or that it’s not “positioned” as such (but is technically capable of similar things), or a lack of marketing/outreach, or what?

When you say it’s “unfortunate… they’re wasting time trying to hack things together when they could be using Discourse”, do you not see that this is a problem you can potentially solve? This is what marketing and outreach are for.

This feels like more of the kind of detail and clarity in terms of positioning and intent that I’ve been hoping for, thank you! I am curious how long you would say it has been since Discourse was “no longer in startup mode”, and if this reevaluation is current and ongoing.

Luma is an interesting example, and it was mentioned in the example Twitter thread I started this discussion with. I did feel like its inclusion in that Twitter discussion kind of muddied the waters and made me question “What are these people actually looking for when they say ‘community platform’?” However at the same time I think looking too much at the Luma example might lead one to believe “Well, these people are looking for something that Discourse doesn’t do and that’s why it’s not being mentioned there.” when in fact many of the other more commonly-referenced platforms, like Mighty Networks, Circle, and others, do make “discussion” a prime focus (even if they may handle it differently than Discourse, e.g. more comment-like a-la Facebook and less long-form).

To me more important than the way that a platform represents “discussion” (or whether they do at all) is the question of: what are these potential customers looking for, what do they mean and want when they are looking for a “community platform”? Sometimes I think even they don’t know, they just have heard that “community” is now a “must” for building a company, so they’re looking for something to “make that happen”. I still think Discourse should be in that consideration though.

This is an insightful point and worth further consideration and discussion. For example, if it’s true that “long-form discussion is not the main building block of many community strategies”, does that simply mean that Discourse is focused on long-form and therefore many people trying to create “community” simply will not and should not be considering Discourse, and this is fine? In other words is the priority of Discourse to be long-form discussion, regardless of where the greater market goes? If so, I’d certainly understand that, though I’d still wonder about long-term viability of that strategy.

Adaptation to market needs is important, but it’s also tricky to navigate this, to avoid losing your focus, not veer for every market trend, etc. And also defining what one’s market is is not trivial. I just think it’s valuable to have these discussions happening in public where possible.

More than anything I think my hope is that Discourse can remain a really strong platform for long-form, and help promote that approach (which I personally find to be more, er, “civilized” ), while also adding features, options, etc. that can help bridge the gap into these other styles of “community” that people are favoring in large numbers. I see the in-development Chat plugin as a prime example of this and I’m very excited for it. With these kinds of developments, can Discourse be a bridge and an “ambassador” to get people who are used to Facebook group style to get better at, more comfortable with, and ultimately more interested in at least some long-form discussion? I think most here would agree this is a generally higher form of “engagement” and discussion.

It’s interesting that you put Circle in this category. Have you ever used it? Has any company or community you are a part of used it? The few Circle memberships I’ve tried have actually been extremely obviously not “disposable discussion”, etc. One was a super active, super supportive community entirely focused on self-improvement, productivity, learning, mental health, etc. Brain stuff! It’s worlds away from most of what I see on Instagram, etc. Have a look if you’re curious to see how Circle can be (and in my experience often is) used in that way: Learning Community - Ness Labs

Main point is really that there is little or nothing intrinsic to Circle, out of that list, that makes it “feel good” or “disposable”, while I’d argue some of the others that is very true of. I’ve even seen some really cool discussion on Discord too, but because of its closed platform, lack of SEO, and poor search and archiving, most of that conversation is doomed to obscurity, i.e. “disposable”, even if the content of the discussion itself has higher potential value. One of the nuances here as well is that the platform and the medium doesn’t inherently dictate the content, although it does influence it. People have surprisingly in-depth discussions in Discord and even Instagram, even though neither is particularly good at doing so. And in fact this is one of the biggest reasons I want Discourse to be more popular and widely used, because I see good conversations being “lost” on platforms that are not built for them!

Yes, I agree, and this is exactly why I want Discourse to be more well-known and widely used.

Excellent!

While I understand the intent of changing the title, I don’t think this has much specifically to do with “social media”. It’s more about what conversations Discourse is in and not in, and whether Discourse is “in” the conversations it “should be”/is intended to be in.

Other than that I really appreciate your response and agree with basically everything you said. And I especially appreciate you asking for help understanding why Discourse may not be in some conversations that it should be.

I am just one person, and I do talk about Discourse fairly often:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3AOGreenius%20discourse&f=live
I have also advocated for and directly implemented it now with multiple startups and an informal productivity group, and I continue to do so whenever I can.

That said, in that particular Twitter thread the reason I didn’t mention Discourse is because my original question in the topic title here was quite genuine: I honestly was not sure if Discourse is - or is meant to be - used for the same kinds of purposes as. e.g. Circle, Mighty Networks, and some of the other recommended platforms being suggested in that thread. I only want to make a recommendation if it can be a strong one that directly meets the person’s needs and intended use. I suppose it might have been productive to ask for clarification from the thread starter, but I was more interested in understanding why it was not already more mentioned (hence the topic here), than trying to take some small part in changing that fact in this particular instance (which, as I mentioned, I already do more generally).

More broadly what makes me hesitate in recommending Discourse sometimes? I know there are reasons for these, and they are unlikely to change, but since you asked, two of the top (intertwined) reasons are: price and complexity of hosting environment (relative to competitors). These are not new considerations, but I’ll elaborate a bit here:

Let’s look at Mighty Networks as an alternative to Discourse’s hosted offering. Mighty is cheaper and has more features out-of-the-box. Also cheaper are IPB and XenForo, for what it’s worth (looking more directly at the forum root/use case). Now of course you cannot self-host Mighty, but you can self-host IPB and many others, so let’s look at that for a moment. Vanilla is more directly comparable to Discourse in that it’s open source. And here’s where you start to see the big challenges as far as self-hosting.

The bare minimum cost for hosting Discourse “in the cloud” is a $10/mo Digital Ocean instance, and that’s not much at all. Probably $20/mo is a more fair baseline. But the complexity of it vs. the many PHP-based options is part of the problem. Many web hosts with Cpanel (of which there are tons) even come with Softaculous or something similar, where I can literally see a list of 10+ PHP forum options that can be installed with a few clicks. Further to that the fact that your $10-20/mo server has to be only for Discourse (unless you have the technical know-how to setup multiple containers, etc.), whereas with PHP-based options I can have my simple Wordpress site on the same server (or even shared hosting) as my community.

Now I get this is “small potatoes”, and these are not scenarios you’d recommend (shared hosting, etc.). The way Discourse works sort of enforces more “best practices”, which is to say not hosting a bunch of stuff in a single container or server, etc. Yet I have started and run numerous successful, active, interesting, and useful communities on such inexpensive, shared hosting over the years, and it’s a powerful, legitimate use case.

That said I understand that if some customer considers e.g. $100/mo to be “a lot of money for a community platform”, then CDCK as a company may not be that concerned about winning their business. But I also think pricing and self-host complexity may be a part of what keeps it out of the general conversations around community platforms, where in many cases it might be more suitable, whether hosted by CDCK or self-hosted. In other words price+complexity might be a barrier to general mindshare, which wouldn’t necessarily impact CDCK’s bottom line directly, but certainly I think indirectly.

I know for my part my journey to being a Discourse advocate began as a user, then only because I was reasonably technical I could start up an inexpensive Digital Ocean instance and (through much trial and error) learn how to host it myself inexpensively, and on that basis I could then recommend it. In other words my use cases for personal needs were a key part of becoming a Discourse advocate and recommending and even implementing it in multiple instances since then. For less technical people that path to “advocate” or “recommender” seems more challenging. Is that a problem CDCK needs to solve? Obviously that’s not for me to say, and I also don’t know that I have a clear answer, but I think it’s worth considering.

And before it’s pointed out, I do want to acknowledge the value of CDCK’s open source support, etc., as well as the existence of Communiteq as a lower-cost option. I am well aware of these things, but potential customers seem less well aware. Ultimately the Discourse model, as a platform and/or as a business may simply be different than e.g. Mighty or Circle, and therefore inherently less likely to be compared for or chosen by customers of those systems, but I do think it is worth being aware of and continuously evaluating one’s market positioning and goals as the industry changes. There has been more said here to address those considerations than I have seen in the past, and I really appreciate that insight into what the Discourse team are thinking and working on re: messaging, market fit, etc, etc.

What is “the social media audience”? What even is “social media”, to you? Twitter and Facebook and Reddit as 3 examples are incredibly different in many respects. Two have a “follow” model, but one is “open follow” (Twitter) and largely “open posting”, the other is more “friend”-oriented (Facebook). Reddit is very “social” but largely anonymous and open, yet much more long-form than Twitter. Are all these the same in your view, falling under “social media”? And if so, what about them makes them spaces where you don’t want Discourse to be popular?

It’s been nearly 10 years since Discourse was founded. I see other clear indication from team members in this thread that indeed there is some shift happening in this direction, but aside from discussion in this topic, I have seen little other mention or evidence of it. I am excited for the possibility though, and I guess I’m just curious what makes you feel that it is “very close to finding its golden audience”, and if so, why now?

Thank you again everyone for engaging in this discussion! I am sorry if my replies have been a bit long-winded, but hey, Discourse makes it easy to have long-form discussion.

您是什么意思？话语就是对话！

开个玩笑，这是一个发人深省的话题。感谢您的发布！

社交媒体可以吸引特定的社区。例如，Discord 主要被游戏玩家使用，Flickr 主要被摄影师使用，Pinterest 主要被艺术家使用。如果我愿意，我可以继续说下去，但我认为您已经明白了。

这个话题将为我的收藏增添一笔精彩的内容……

有趣的问题。有关此背景，请阅读社区论坛：历史与演变 | 作者：Surinder P. Singh | Medium

我感觉那个帖子没有提到 Discourse 是因为帖子的受众。这些人不一定实施过任何类型的论坛，对社区也没有太多经验。

设置“社区”的默认选项似乎是 Slack/Discord/Chat 空间。这也很公平。随着社区的成熟，它们可能会朝着论坛（+聊天空间）发展。

对我来说，Circle 似乎是小型社区的默认选择，这归功于设置社区作为企业和举办活动的便利性。例如，对其进行付费墙设置要容易得多。

当我想象长期投资作为论坛时，Discourse 仍然是我的第一选择。我们几年前就为 Ministry of Testing 设置了一个。我刚刚也为 Rosieland 设置了一个。Forem 看起来也不错，但我感觉它鼓励的是一种不同类型的、不太适合我的内容。

在设置我的新 Rosieland Discourse 时，我意识到它有一些集成，比如 Patreon，这肯定会吸引更多的独立/创作者/初创公司类型的人群。

@rosiesherry 感谢您在此发表您的看法！

这很有道理。聊天入门门槛低，但无法应对大量的对话。因此，两者兼备会很有帮助！

我同意！作为一名业余创作者，Discourse 可以做很多事情。现在作为这里的营销人员，我正尽我最大的努力帮助人们了解我们可以帮助解决这些问题。我喜欢 Discourse 不是一个中心化平台的事实（这也是我在这里工作的原因之一），因此创作者可以拥有自己的社区区域，而不必受制于大众市场或专有SaaS软件不断变化的市场（尽管根据用例，使用它们也有充分的理由）。

这实际上很有意思。在北欧国家（瑞典、挪威、芬兰、丹麦，冰岛太小不具可比性），聊天门槛很高。但这取决于具体情况，当有“真正的社区”时，例如F1、冰球等，情况就不同了。

我知道这有点跑题了，但总的来说，当有人谈论社区的含义时，我们应该始终清楚地认识到这里存在强烈的英美偏见。

但全球性企业应该明白这一点，而他们大多不明白。

Discourse 的价值在于它可以适应各种文化，因为它“仅仅”是一个可编辑的平台。

抱歉，请继续。我已经不记得我的观点是什么了

我担心聊天（当与论坛集成时）会窃取永久性（且经过搜索引擎索引、改善SEO）记录中的内容。与其创建高质量的永久性论坛帖子，不如在聊天中说一些有用且有趣的话，然后它就消失了。如果聊天不可用，唯一的选择就是发帖。真是两难！

嗯，大部分聊天内容都是无关紧要的，但总比在论坛上好。对于更有价值的内容，我们可以选择开启新话题，并以这种方式保存聊天消息，所以根本没有两难

聊天实际上是保持话题更整洁的好渠道。如果用户使用它的话。聊天在这里并不是一个真正的成功案例（有人能看到吗，还是只有我们几个人？）

我不同意。我的一个论坛上会发生一些意想不到的对话，结果非常有趣，目前它们被记录为帖子。如果需要，无聊的内容可以被删除，作为低价值的帖子，如果得到适当的审核。

如果我要促进聊天，我可以想象一些有价值的观点和主题在聊天中被提出、讨论，然后丢失。这不像有人会决定：“哦，我刚才说的话真的很有趣，我要去论坛开个关于这个的话题”或者“哦，戴夫说的很酷，我要去论坛开个关于这个的话题”。因为他们已经谈过了，而且有比费力地复制和翻译他们的聊天对话到其他媒介更好的事情要做。

所以，是的，我相信这对一些社区来说是一个真正的困境。

一方面，我认为我们不需要记录聊天中的所有内容。这就像我们不会记录现实对话中的所有内容一样。

但是，作为社区建设者，你可以以身作则，自己在论坛上发起对话，也许可以标记一些人。是的，这需要额外的工作，但随着时间的推移，其他人也可能会这样做。

我一直在做笔记或保存聊天记录，打算将它们记录在论坛或更永久的地方。我并不总是能完成它们，但我的初衷是这样。这是一个很好的习惯。

是的，我同意。 （但我很高兴你在帖子中提供了有用的建议：）。在这种情况下，管理活动和社区领导者的行为可能会带来真正的益处。挑战在于人力，拥有足够积极的社区领导者以及足够多知道自己在做什么的人。

（附注：抱歉，我可能把这个话题带偏了……如果觉得有用，请随时将这个分支另开一个话题）

很高兴在这里见到你，@rosiesherry！

我倾向于同意，但同时我不认为 Discourse 的“低调”存在仅限于那些人。那个帖子是我开始这个话题的触发点，但这种感觉已经持续了我认识 Discourse 的时间，也肯定是我个人实施它的时间。

一方面，在软件支持论坛（Figma、Airtable、Coda 等）等特定环境中，有一些大型且成功的案例。另一方面，在更广泛的“社区”环境中，我看到对它的考虑要少得多，我最初的问题是这是否合适（即，Discourse 通常不是这些想要建立“社区平台”的人的正确工具），还是一个错失的机会。也就是说，在阐明 Discourse 在该领域的潜力方面，是否有值得注意的工作要做？显然，它不适合所有这些需求，但我认为对某些人来说，并且随着即将到来的聊天集成，它将涵盖更多需求。

同意，这也是我所看到的。而且我认为你提到的因素值得注意，特别是付费墙化的便捷性。我想知道 Discourse 是否可以为这些方面提供更多（清晰的）功能。特别是在其官方托管的实例中。

这绝对是好事！ （我同意）但是什么让人们特别想到“论坛”呢？我当然有我的想法。但我很好奇你怎么看。更广泛地说，Discourse 是否适合参与我所引用的对话（以及许多其他在我看来它似乎被低估的对话）？“社区”是一个很大的流行词，因此是许多公司现在的目标，所以人们正在寻找工具。Discourse 是否应该比现在更广泛地推荐？再次强调，这是我开始讨论的主要考虑因素。

哦，这是一个有趣的评论！我很想知道你可能会如何定义那种不同的内容。作为一名社区建设者，如果你与一家想要“建立社区”的公司或组织合作，在什么情况下或在什么需求/目标下，你会推荐 Forum 而不是 Discourse？

是的，我认为这可以得到更好的推广（也许在功能上进一步完善？）。

绝对！我很高兴你带着这些想法来担任你的角色，我对这方面的前景感到兴奋。

这些无疑是很大的担忧，对我来说，它们直接说明了当前状况的问题（例如，独立的 Discourse 论坛和 Discord 聊天等）。然而，我很高兴预 Alpha 聊天插件似乎旨在至少帮助解决其中一些问题，其程度取决于技术解决方案能否解决问题（而不是 AI 试图弄清楚什么是有价值的内容并自动将其移至某个主题 ）。我不确定你们是否已经试验过聊天插件，但基本上，工作人员（或任何具有适当权限的人）可以从聊天中选择一条或多条消息，并将其复制到一个新主题或现有主题中。实际上，这非常快速和容易。我相信，通过适当的权限配置，作者本人也可以做到这一点，至少是针对他们自己的消息。

现在这是解决方案的技术方面。它本身并不能让人们将他们的内容移到更存档的位置。但至少使其显着更容易应该会鼓励更忠实的参与者以这种方式突出他们的一些内容。我认为拥有可以“推广”他们所说内容的能力可以带来一些激励。他们可能不会主动发布一条值得注意的聊天消息，但在我参与的一些社区（例如 Obsidian）中，你经常会看到这些非常精彩的单条消息（或来自同一用户的消息集），它们非常值得成为一个话题。所以我希望人们在获得这种能力后会实际使用它。

即使那样，一个管理良好的论坛+聊天设置也有潜力让工作人员做到这一点。如果一个社区决定启用/允许聊天，大概是出于理解，会有一定程度的审核（以维持论坛上已经维持的任何社区标准）。这确实会增加工作人员的负担，这一点还有待观察，在某些或许多情况下可能需要重新平衡工作人员的资源。但如果做得有效，版主应该能够大部分时间看到并“推广”有价值的内容到合适的地方。而且，有了 Discourse + 聊天，他们将拥有出色的工具！

无论是否发生这一切，至少拥有集成和工具来非常轻松快速地将聊天内容复制到更永久的内容中，这是一个巨大的进步。是否足以让相当数量的社区/组织采用 Discourse 作为聊天+论坛的单一平台，还有待观察。但我对此充满希望。

我认为这关乎更直接的连接方式。比如加入一个聊天，参加一个活动。现在你可以建立一个以活动为主要连接方式的在线社区。这就是这个领域是如何扩展的，而 Discourse 似乎不再是核心解决方案。

嗯，我确实会讨论 Discourse，但我认为它通常不是最佳解决方案，原因有两个：

• 开箱即用的前端不提供现代外观。这一点被反复提及，所以我甚至不想多谈。但是的，圆角按钮等在人们扫描潜在解决方案时会产生巨大影响。
• 我为 Discourse 做定制设计。所以个人来说，我甚至不太关心前端。只要有足够的预算，你可以让 Discourse 看起来几乎像客户想要的任何样子。但我仍然不总是推荐它，那是因为后端过于复杂。根据我的经验，只有当有至少一名全职社区经理的资源时，Discourse 才有意义。但我见过一些经理即使一年后仍在与 Discourse 斗争。要实现一些设置，你需要以复杂的方式导航后端。

至少对我来说，如果后端提供以下功能，我会更频繁地推荐 Discourse：

• 一个简单的界面和一个高级界面
• 一个面向实际使用和运营社区的人的界面。Discourse 是围绕版主、管理员和用户构建的——但如今是社区经理在寻找解决方案来服务他们的成员——这不仅仅是术语。

我的意思是，像Forem和Indie Hackers（这是定制的）这样的地方，内容通常倾向于教育性内容，而不是“帮助或讨论”内容。它们更多的是分享内容以建立受众和声誉，而不是社区、帮助他人或进行真正/更深入的讨论。

我很感谢你分享这个观点。这和我对这个词的理解不完全一样，但这是一个有用的视角。

嗯，是的，我也是。幸运的是，它至少非常适合定制。即使是我，一个不懂 CSS 的人，也能做得不错。

这是非常重要，甚至令人沮丧的反馈。

是的，我很想看到这个，并且一直在思考类似的事情。

有趣，是的。我认为我同意这一点，但很想了解更多你所说的“这不仅仅是术语问题”的意思。也许这对于这个话题来说有点离题了？由你决定。

我觉得这个话题的标题更改让它变得有点模糊或令人困惑，因此可能被一些其他可能有趣的声音忽略了。我知道我自己可以再次更改它，但首先我想知道这里是否有其他参与者有同样的感受。现在可能为时已晚，无法产生太大影响了。