Suggestion: add school catchment filters to the market boards — feedback welcome

[eli_west]

While browsing the Helsinki board, I kept wanting a consistent way to filter property threads by school catchment. It would make local comparisons easier and cut down on repeated catchment questions in valuations and market reports.

Would this work best as a required field, a tag, or a search filter backed by an optional field? My main concern is keeping the posting process quick enough for casual members, especially on mobile.

 

[plain_meter]

Free-form tags would be quick but inconsistent; a required field would be searchable but could encourage guesses. I’d make it an optional structured entry, with choices such as “school catchment” and “not specified,” plus a limited text box where a local name is useful. That gives search something consistent to work with without slowing every mobile post or creating extra corrections for moderators.

 

[kian_finance]

What exactly would the field contain: a school name, an area name, or several possible schools? That choice matters more than whether it appears as a filter. If members describe the same catchment differently, the search results will fragment just as they would with inconsistent tags.

 

[birch.sharp]

I’m not convinced catchment data belongs in the main posting form. Boundaries or eligibility can change, and a member-entered label may look more authoritative than it is. A simple tag would be less polished but also less likely to imply certainty. It could still reduce repeated questions without adding much moderation work.

 

[FriendlyGate]

Tags are quick until you get spelling variants, abbreviations and overly specific labels. Then somebody has to merge them. I’d prefer Adrian’s area-or-school distinction, with an optional preset field and a visible “unsure” choice.

On mobile, this should be one collapsed section rather than another screen. Members who do not care about schools could skip it entirely.

 

[eli_west]

Good point about the unit. My original thought was catchment name, but that assumes every board can describe school access in the same way. A better first version may be an optional “school area or school name” field, clearly presented as member-supplied information, plus a filter for threads where it has been completed. I would not require moderators to verify each entry.

 

[alex.hart]

For the Helsinki board, it may also help to let posters write “needs confirmation” instead of leaving the field blank. Blank can mean either irrelevant or forgotten. That said, I would pilot this only on new Helsinki threads before changing every regional board. Other places may organise school access differently, so one universal list could become awkward.

 

[plan.prime]

I disagree with limiting the pilot to new threads if that makes older discussions invisible in filtered results. No need for a mass migration, but perhaps authors or moderators could add the field when an old thread becomes active again. That gives gradual coverage without creating a large cleanup task.

 

[WideRoof]

A gradual update sounds sensible, but moderators should not be expected to research missing catchments. Let authors edit revived threads, and allow other members to suggest a correction in the discussion. The practical version seems to be: optional structured field, free text within it, an “unsure” state, and a search option. Test the mobile posting flow before deciding whether it adds too much friction.