Why is is easier to join toms than use google

This method could also work for pogo, so when joining you ask:

do you have a specific question?

It is about drivers, pogo, or something else.

Something else takes you to the normal question submission / joining process.
drivers and pogo direct you to a google for your driver or pogo support.

I like your thinking but I have my doubts that it could or would ever be implemented.

My thinking is that most people join to ask a question. So use that to filter, and actually provide a new and unique service for those first timers.

If I was IBM I'd draw the flowchart and patent that.

who do we ask? It certainly can be done, its only code, the question is does toms have the will & desire to do it.

Lets list the types of questions that can be solved like this, so far we've only got:
Pogo
Drivers

Perhaps the Hello's could be dealt with too? and put in their own special section, the test post section.

If you want the flow diagram I can put it on googledocs if the explanation isn't too good.

You could try PM'ing jpishgar with your suggestions or wait a bit and see whether he pops in here and sees this thread.

I'll get the diagram up, it'll be easier to see, and then i'll pm him a link to this thread.

Thanks

NP, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you as it sounds like a great idea to me.

with lmgtfy it would actually be very easy to implement. If you have them type in the name of the product some quick javascript can convert it into a string that you can dump into lmgtfy since its just lmgtfy.com/?q=[word 1]+[word 2]+[word 3]...

A quick filter search for pogo might help if they can adjust the word filter to pop up a message to the user when they use a word or link that is on the list and direct them accordingly. Could be used to deter or at least slow down spam too.

Well I know it can be done because of lmgtfy, but it would need rebranding, to toms first time search helper, or something like that, as I would only use LMGTFY as a saracastic response.

I did try changing the title to - solving the pogo/driver problem, but it wouldn't let me.

+1
I had the exact same line of thinking in these days.

One possible new feature which would ease the situation until better facility is built, and would be fairly easy to implement would be this:
check if the message is
- shorter than X character -> ask the poster to write more details
- has the same content as the subject
- has "Hello," as a content

Something like this.

Ok, here's the link to the drawing (1000's of apologies for how it looks, googloe docs drawing capabailies are nothing compared to visio, i'm almost embarassed by this, and i'd never give it to a client).

https://docs.google.com/drawings/pub?id=1FJ8XoI7HGkC_Kc...

The benefits are many fold
1. it provides instant solutions to some who would otherwise post and disappear,
2. it minimises these 'dead/trivial' threads so that real threads can be on the live feed
3. it encourages disclosure of full information for problem solving, having an escape route out of that would be useful for users who have very low skill levels
4. if written correctly the pogo and driver options, could be expanded by mod's
5. the 'hello' test posts could be a third category alongside drivers and pogo

Its a unique point for toms, even those one-off users (lets face it 90% of the driver and pogo posters never post again (does make me wonder if something else is going on here)) as those one off users will get resolution for their problems. They still join the user base, still count as a unique visitor, but actually walk away with a solved problem. if they can't figure out how to google the answer for themselves they may even tell others that toms fixed their problem during the sign in process.

Going to the ultimate implementation of this: imagine a fault finding expert system wheer during sign in, you get to enter your system details, or run speccy and submit the results, maybe even categorising results. you get to pick a selection of fault types (including other), you get asked to run hwmon, so that temps etc. are provided. Then when the community see that fault they have everything, there will still be people who don't provide it, but thats ok, we'll cope with those one-on-one. But if you have provided it, then imagine the first response you get being, 'looking at all of your system stats, your gpu is too hot' as opposed to more questions that you don't know the answer to. Imagine even further implemtations of this where a download from HWmon is combined with information from speccy and max temps are looked up and compared, extremepsu is used to compared system pull with PSU specs.

OK i've gone a bit far at the end here, but the first parts of this excluding the optional elements should be easy enough to do, with the optional elements (of only selecting the right location) should be easy enough to do. But if you want toms to stand out from the community led support crowd, then the latter stages will do that for you.

Edit: As an addition to the driver question, should they say 'no it didn't answer my question' then we could ask why, and provide that information in the post, its a reasonable expectation that they'd have to provide it anyway, it also may put people off who are creating threads for thread creation sake (not sure why) (following on from the 'wheres the beef' post http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/34258-45-where-beef as some users seem to be changing driver mid thread, it might help to pin down what they want first.).

We're actually experimenting a bit with technical solutions systems in a Q&A style format for our upcoming Tech Support feature that functions somewhat similarly. It doesn't have as many catch-and-stop or redirections as the system you outline above, but it does attempt to resolve and archive solutions to common questions users have in a more rational approach than thread-and-response style.

Good glad to hear it, if you want a beta tester, more than happy to help (between contract jobs right now, although not for much longer with any luck).