Not for Everyone   

Online forums are not the best aspect of the Web.

The Internet is full of really good ideas that are imitated far too often. Among these are online forums, which were one of the first ways that news sites could be "interactive" and are now ubiquitous.

Online forums (aka discussions, message boards or bulletin boards) are extended conversations that take place on the pages of a Web site. Almost all require registration to participate; almost none require that real names be used. They are not the same as live chats, which have specific start and end times, usually feature special guests and are diligently moderated.

When they work, forums create a symbiotic relationship that enhances a site's profile and serves users by providing a place to debate, pontificate, socialize and express emotion. ABCNews.com reported more than 7 million page views (not messages) on its boards on September 11 and 12. Between November 15 and 20, CNN.com's "War on Terrorism" board accumulated about 15,000 messages.

Although they've got no monopoly on current events discussions, national media sites are naturally fitted to this service. They are familiar and trusted. They have a broad and diverse user base, decent software and site structure, and the right sort of staff to serve as monitors or moderators. Managing editors often say they consider their message boards a civic duty and a community service.

They'll get no argument from me. Hosting forums is also great for business--or "stickiness," if you prefer. The investment in weeding and feeding online discussions is repaid in page views, registered users and bragging rights.

That investment is also substantial. Lively forums don't sprout naturally from good news coverage; they must be grafted onto the site (both figuratively and technically) and carefully tended. It's quality of conversation--not loyalty to the site--that keeps users coming back.

At a minimum, Web staffers need to manage discussion topics and make sure they are promoted on other pages. It's also standard procedure at news sites to screen or monitor messages as they arrive, blocking rogue posts (obscenity, advertisements, etc.) before they appear or catching them soon after. The better boards make some order of the chaos by showcasing selected comments from each discussion.

Now, here's the caveat. Even if local sites put this much effort into their forums--which they seldom do, or should--they'd probably be disappointed. Online forums don't scale well.

Almost every local news site has a forum area because the software or service is relatively inexpensive, and having one seems like the interactive thing to do. Yet few topics attract more than a handful of responses, no matter how rigorously users are cajoled to "chime in."

The simplest explanation is that local forums just aren't as heavily trafficked as national--or international--forums. With the exception of a few "regulars" who prefer the small-pond effect--and the occasional high-draw local topic--people who want good conversation will choose the larger audience and broader exchange provided by a national site.

To overcome that disadvantage, local sites can try to be better at promotion, ease of use and choice of local topics. If that doesn't work, they should move on. While forums are a good service, they shouldn't be confused with the core business of doing journalism. Nor should they eat up resources that could be spent developing newer, more creative ideas.

Forums are built to connect users with each other, not with the newsroom. Some sites may be extremely attentive to their forums, but it's rare that anything said in a forum jumps the fence into a news report.

A site's level of user engagement should not be judged by how many chances users have to vote, react or feed back; it should be judged by what comes of that interaction:

At the most basic level of engagement are the omnipresent Web polls and forum topics that might elicit input but not discussion.

At the second level are the better message boards, which provoke thoughtful discussion and debate among users.

At the third level, individuals interact with the organization by providing information, story ideas and feedback that are actually used to improve news coverage. Online examples seem sparse and random, which is all the more reason to explore new concepts--particularly at the local level.

Online forums are well suited for what they offer: catharsis, conversation and companionship. However, they ought not to be a foregone conclusion, the benchmark of user engagement--or the measure of a news site's success.