Small forum idea: a planning applications filter

W

writeTheMap

Mortgage adviser
An optional tag seems like the least intrusive way to identify Montreal planning-application threads, but I am not sure it would remain consistent enough to improve search results. A mandatory field would produce cleaner data, though it could be an unnecessary obstacle for unrelated posts and awkward on a phone.

Would a fixed tag that also feeds a search filter be a sensible middle ground? I am also wondering whether existing threads should be tagged retrospectively, left alone, or updated only when someone next replies to them.
 
I would start with an optional tag that appears only in the relevant property sections. A required field adds friction to every new thread, even when no application is involved. The tag could then power a search filter without needing two separate systems.

The harder part is consistency: would Montreal use one broad “planning application” tag, or would members expect more specific local categories?
 
Optional tags tend to become unreliable if posters can skip them or choose inconsistent wording. If the aim is useful comparisons, I would prefer a short fixed-choice field with “not applicable” as the default. That is one extra tap on mobile, not a form to complete.

Also, is this meant to identify a thread about an application, or a property affected by one nearby? Those searches are quite different.
 
That distinction is important. A single field could produce misleading results if it mixes applications for the property with nearby proposals.

I still disagree on making it required from the start. A Montreal-only trial with two fixed tags—perhaps simply “on-site” and “nearby”—would show whether members actually use the filter. Moderators could correct obvious cases during the trial, but backfilling the entire archive sounds like unnecessary work. Older threads could remain untagged unless someone revives them.
 
The on-site versus nearby split solves the ambiguity I had not accounted for. I agree that a Montreal trial is safer than changing every regional board, since terminology and posting habits may differ elsewhere.

My preference now is two optional, moderator-defined tags feeding one search filter, with no archive-wide migration. The mobile composer should show them as compact choices rather than another open text box. If usage is too patchy to make search results dependable, we could then consider a required “not applicable / on-site / nearby” field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top