Weaknesses of Plans

After a reasonably extensive survey of Plans, some may be curious as to how I would change Plans. The already stated technological differences from other online communities may be seen as a downside, but I see it as giving Plans a clear focus on communication which helps drive forward the community.

Of the six facets that help show Plans to be a community, the one it lacked most was the ability to breakout and reassemble. With the introduction of Plans chat, it may allow for a small group to have an offshoot meeting there. Still, though, a meeting in the chat room is subject to whoever might be in the chat room at the time. Also, chat rooms are nothing new and if they have not already been used, a slightly more convenient one with few extra features will most likely not catch on or solve the problem. In the end, I would recommend not changing anything and continuing to rely on the hybrid nature of the Plans community. Real life will most likely remain the best setting for breaking out.

It seems quite clear how the Grinnell community affects the Plans community. In contrast, the effect of Plans on Grinnell remains slightly less clear and could be further improved. The addition of a ride board (which has been proposed), facilitated forums on hot campus topics (a formalized forum for the hot topics such as John Kerry, Ghostface Killah, and the Muhammad Cartoon controversy), a general classified section, and a wiki-style calendar could all help Plans have a greater effect on the Grinnell student community.

Additional Note:

While the Notes feature (see A Short Introduction to Plans' Features) comes close to satisfying the suggestion of a facilitated forum, two things hamper it in fulfilling its function. The first is simply the fact that not many people use it. By adding multiple facilitators who could constantly add conversation topics, people might see it as a more legitimate forum for exchange of ideas. Currently it has the possibility of serving multiple, unofficial purposes (ride board, classifieds, discussion board, etc.) and it has no real definition. Student use could be increased by alerting people to the current hot topics being discussed — with an alert on the home page — and also defining it as a forum for discussions and not one for solicitations. As I wrote in the conclusion, "Plans users must believe [Plans] is a good form of communication and use it as such for it to function at its best." The lack of use make's Notes inherently ineffective.

Second, Notes is currently formatted as one running-discussion. I would propose that the format be changed so that posts are responses to a question or statement at the top of the page (instead of being buried in the first post at the bottom of the page). In doing this, comments would be added to a mass of quotations instead of interrupting an in-progress discussion. Many times, a blanket statement on Plans, not directed at anyone with plan love, receives multiple comments. I presume that specific comments to users are responded to less frequently, and it is this same problem that is currently inhibiting Notes.

One final issue worth engaging is the student-alumni dichotomy. Magnified by some of the survey results (such as permanent contact info with a plan), it is quite clear that alumni and student usage vary greatly in some instances. Whether to create certain features that would be used primarily by one group or another is an important decision that should be made carefully. A greater exchange of information should only be encouraged if it does not hamper the community. This would include breaking it into two, three, or four sub-communities that would begin to develop new sub-sub-cultures which could create rifts among the Plans community. However, in some cases, such as the display of contact information, providing a formal area of the plan in which to display that information would only encourage people to use it more and increase communication outside of Plans. Tailoring the community to needs should only be done when those needs are demonstrated by a full cross-section of the community and not one specific demographic.