local focus

[doug]

The purpose of this section is to help facilitate local groups and discussion of their events and local news. If you'd like a forum created for your group/region, let us know here and we'll consider it. If you can point to existing threads relevant to your locale we can move them to your forum (since I'd rather not be making empty forums). Don't worry, existing links to threads and posts will continue to work independent of forum placement.

[dsm363]

Thanks. Could you create one for Texas? The various groups could be in that sub folder (Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio).

I created a Texas thread but could it be moved up to the sub-fourm area? Thanks.

[aviators99]

Please create a Southeast Florida forum. This would include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and the Palm Beaches.

[doug]

Well I just changed it to just Florida. We'll see how the usage goes and can change the structure as needed.

[Doug_G]

I could suggest a "Canada" forum, although it wouldn't really be "local". Canada is physically larger than the USA and some "local" owners would be more than 4000 km away from me.

[doug]

I could suggest a "Canada" forum, although it wouldn't really be "local". Canada is physically larger than the USA and some "local" owners would be more than 4000 km away from me.
Well I suppose the terminology could be tweaked; I was considering "regional" at some point. For me, "local group" is first a math term and second an astronomy term, so it sounds a bit odd to my ear.

[vfx]

I was thinking "geographic" but I like "regional"

Regional Tesla Groups
Regional Tesla Clubs

Tesla Coils

[NigelM]

Well I just changed it to just Florida. We'll see how the usage goes and can change the structure as needed.

Thank's Doug. The overwhelming opinion over here is that everyone prefers a "Florida" forum at least for now.

[Larry Chanin]

Please create a Southeast Florida forum. This would include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and the Palm Beaches.


Well I just changed it to just Florida. We'll see how the usage goes and can change the structure as needed.


Thank's Doug. The overwhelming opinion over here is that everyone prefers a "Florida" forum at least for now.

Hi aviator,

I agree with Doug and Nigel.

Remember it is still possible for you to create threads that apply to local issues or announce proposed local events.

Larry

[Doug_G]

Well I suppose the terminology could be tweaked; I was considering "regional" at some point. For me, "local group" is first a math term and second an astronomy term, so it sounds a bit odd to my ear.

Ah, so any owner within, say, 10 million light years could join my group?

[doug]

Ah, so any owner within, say, 10 million light years could join my group?
In a galaxy not so far away, assuming it's an abelian group.

[W.Petefish]

A section for Dallas/North Tx might be nice. That is if it isn't too much trouble.

[Iz]

Ah, so any owner within, say, 10 million light years could join my group?
My fantasy weekends - visit the planets of nearby stars and be back in time for work Monday mornings :cool:

[doug]

A section for Dallas/North Tx might be nice. That is if it isn't too much trouble.
Try using the Texas forum.

[Robert.Boston]

Could we get a New England section, please? Probably should have a Canada section, too.

[NigelM]

Now that the number of "regions" is growing so fast, would it be possible to put them in alphabetical order at the Sub-Forums: Regional level please?

[doug]

Now that the number of "regions" is growing so fast, would it be possible to put them in alphabetical order at the Sub-Forums: Regional level please?
Sorry. MPT must have added a few new ones. I previously had them listed roughly west to east. I'll try to get things cleaned up.

[bonnie1194]

Bus. MPT.

5147

[dsm363]

Can the Sub forums have folders within them as well? Could have Regional/Midwest then an Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all with separate folders.

[vfx]

West to East,


Left to Right makes more sense since when looking there is no way of knowing what a region will be called.

[rabar10]

Can the Sub forums have folders within them as well? Could have Regional/Midwest then an Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all with separate folders.
I tend to agree with what doug has alluded to earlier -- we can start regional or local threads, and as activity grows new sub-forums can be made to accommodate that and threads moved there.

Otherwise, we could end up with several empty or nearly-empty forums, which just adds to the clutter...

[bonnie1194]

I agree with Doug, also. I put out a call for Sacramento folks (rather than being lumped in with SF) - and one reply, from a forum member who will be in the area on occasion once he receives his Model S. Doesn't make sense to have a Sac forum at this point in time.

If you started each name with the GMT time zone, it would be easier to keep sorted. Ignore daylight savings. -7 San Francisco Bay. -7 So Cal. etc.

[doug]

Well I had hoped that this could grow more organically. But it looks like I need to start with a basic regional frame work. Also I don't want our international members to feel crowded out.

Still working on it.

[bonnie1194]

I think it can grow more organically, just enforce a common naming convention (like the GMT offset), so people can quickly find possible matches and it's easy for you to keep it sorted in an order.

[JRod0802]

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I just noticed that Florida is listed twice. It's listed as a state within the "Southeast" section and it's also listed as its own "Florida" section.

Perhaps it should be removed from the list of states for the Southeast section so that all Florida posts end up in the same place?

Edit: Now that I look at it, it would probably make sense to remove Florida from Southeast considering that California (which also has its own section) isn't listed within Southwest.

[joefee]

San Diego,CA group would be good!

[doug]

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I just noticed that Florida is listed twice. It's listed as a state within the "Southeast" section and it's also listed as its own "Florida" section.

Perhaps it should be removed from the list of states for the Southeast section so that all Florida posts end up in the same place?

Edit: Now that I look at it, it would probably make sense to remove Florida from Southeast considering that California (which also has its own section) isn't listed within Southwest.
Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. Was left over from this discussion: Change Florida forum name? (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/8008-Change-Florida-forum-name)

[MarkR]

I've formed an Arizona Tesla Group. If interested, please go to "Community" and then "Groups" to sign up.

Come to think of it, it might be a good idea for each community to form a Group to advocate for common interests like charging stations, EV incentives, solar options, etc. Thanks.

[MarkR]

It might make sense to try to promote Tesla member communication within the metropolitan areas that are most apt to have the population density to allow a group to exist. Maybe with Threads for each area or maybe with Groups. I have to think that the needs of Tesla owners in my community will be different than those in Maine so it just makes sense to band together.



Rank
Metropolitan Statistical Area
2011 Estimate
2010 Census
Change
Combined Statistical Area


1
New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area)
19,015,900
18,897,109
+0.63%
New York–Newark–Bridgeport, NY–NJ–CT–PA CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area)


2
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area)
12,944,801
12,828,837
+0.90%
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Riverside, CA CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area)


3
Chicago–Joliet–Naperville, IL–IN–WI MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area)
9,504,753
9,461,105
+0.46%
Chicago–Naperville–Michigan City, IL–IN–WI CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area)


4
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas%E2%80%93Fort_Worth_metroplex)
6,526,548
6,371,773
+2.43%
Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas%E2%80%93Fort_Worth_metroplex)


5
Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, TX MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston)
6,086,538
5,946,800
+2.35%
Houston–Baytown–Huntsville, TX CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston)


6
Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Valley)
5,992,414
5,965,343
+0.45%
Philadelphia–Camden–Vineland, PA–NJ–DE–MD CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Valley)


7
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area)
5,703,948
5,582,170
+2.18%
Washington–Baltimore–Northern Virginia, DC–MD–VA–WV CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore%E2%80%93Washington_Metropolitan_Area)


8
Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach, FL MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Florida_metropolitan_area)
5,670,125
5,564,635
+1.90%
primary census statistical area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_census_statistical_area)


9
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, GA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_metropolitan_area)
5,359,205
5,268,860
+1.71%
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Gainesville, GA–AL CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_metropolitan_area)


10
Boston–Cambridge–Quincy, MA–NH MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Boston)
4,591,112
4,552,402
+0.85%
Boston–Worcester–Manchester, MA–RI–NH CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Boston)


11
San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco-Oakland-Fremont,_CA_MSA)
4,391,037
4,335,391
+1.28%
San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_Combined_Statistical_Area)


12
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Empire_(California))
4,304,997
4,224,851
+1.90%
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Riverside, CA CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area)


13
Detroit–Warren–Livonia, MI MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Detroit)
4,285,832
4,296,250
−0.24%
Detroit–Warren–Flint, MI CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Detroit)


14
Phoenix–Mesa–Glendale, AZ MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_metropolitan_area)
4,262,236
4,192,887
+1.65%
primary census statistical area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_census_statistical_area)


15
Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_metropolitan_area)
3,500,026
3,439,809
+1.75%
Seattle–Tacoma–Olympia, WA CSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_metropolitan_area)


16
Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI MSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul)
3,318,486
3,279,833
+1.18%
Minneapolis–St. Paul–St. Cloud, MN–WI C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul)

[clea]

column headers please

[ElSupreme]

column headers please

I guessing

Population Rank / (in US, Metro Statistical Area) / This year population / Last year population / Growth / (Combined Statistical Area)

It looks like his numbers are actually coming from the MSAs not the CSAs. For some locations they are very different, most of them are the same. Washington having Baltimore in the same CSA but not MSA is an example having a 2,000,000 plus person swing. Atlanta, and Dallas aren't really too different CSA vs MSA having only a few hundred thousand different..

[doug]

I've formed an Arizona Tesla Group. If interested, please go to "Community" and then "Groups" to sign up.

Come to think of it, it might be a good idea for each community to form a Group to advocate for common interests like charging stations, EV incentives, solar options, etc. Thanks.
Historically no one's ever really used the Groups feature of this site (which can be found here: Groups - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/group.php)).
I spent some time evaluating Groups when I was trying to decide on regional forums.

The benefit of Groups is that they are member driven. Whoever makes creates a group owns it and kinda moderates it. They also have a nice compact format.

The down side is that there are very few moderator tools, even for admins. Basically there's only the option to delete and undelete. There is no moving of "messages" (the equivalent of posts) or merging of "discussions" (the equivalent of threads), nor is there any option to split discussions. So if a discussion goes off topic, it is permanently so unless you delete a lot of stuff. There are also a bunch of technical things that work in "forums" that don't work in "groups". Unfortunately, there is no native functionality to convert group discussions to forum threads or vice versa.

So I decided to set up regional forums and assign moderators as needed. The activity in some regional forums is still rather low, but that may change over time as membership grows. I guess we'll see how it works out.

[MarkR]

Historically no one's ever really used the Groups feature of this site (which can be found here: Groups - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/group.php)).
I spent some time evaluating Groups when I was trying to decide on regional forums.
.
Perhaps it would make sense to kill off the groups rather than split the action between the Groups and Local Threads. Actually my preference would be to add functionality to the Groups to permit group moderation and group emails to promote meet-ups and better coordination of local activities.

[Larry Chanin]

Historically no one's ever really used the Groups feature of this site (which can be found here: Groups - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/group.php)).
I spent some time evaluating Groups when I was trying to decide on regional forums.

The benefit of Groups is that they are member driven. Whoever makes creates a group owns it and kinda moderates it. They also have a nice compact format.

The down side is that there are very few moderator tools, even for admins. Basically there's only the option to delete and undelete. There is no moving of "messages" (the equivalent of posts) or merging of "discussions" (the equivalent of threads), nor is there any option to split discussions. So if a discussion goes off topic, it is permanently so unless you delete a lot of stuff. There are also a bunch of technical things that work in "forums" that don't work in "groups". Unfortunately, there is no native functionality to convert group discussions to forum threads or vice versa.

So I decided to set up regional forums and assign moderators as needed. The activity in some regional forums is still rather low, but that may change over time as membership grows. I guess we'll see how it works out.


Perhaps it would make sense to kill off the groups rather than split the action between the Groups and Local Threads. Actually my preference would be to add functionality to the Groups to permit group moderation and group emails to promote meet-ups and better coordination of local activities.

Nigel and I were thinking about setting up a Florida Group to facilitate meet-ups. We were looking for a feature that would permit only Group members to view the content. This functionality is needed to permit members to post home addresses, contact information, etc. without exposing this information to non-Group members, and the public in general. However, I found that I could view the Arizona Group content even though I wasn't a member.

Mark: When you setup your Group did you make it public, or did you choose to moderate who could join or did you make membership by invitation only?


Doug: If the content can not currently be limited to viewing by Group members, it would be very helpful to add this functionality, assuming its not too difficult.

Thanks for your efforts.

Larry

[dsm363]

Google groups also works. A moderator can be set up and invite members. E-mail alerts are sent out to new posts but settings can be adjusted.

[doug]

Ok, I went through the admin control panel on Groups and there is an option to allow private groups which was disabled. I've now enabled it.

[Larry Chanin]

Ok, I went through the admin control panel on Groups and there is an option to allow private groups which was disabled. I've now enabled it.

Hi Doug,

Thanks very much.

Will this private group feature work on newly created Groups? I can still access the content on the Arizona Group even though I'm not a member.

Larry

[doug]

Yeah, I think it's an option when you create the group. There is a "test" category where you can try things out. But anything there will be deleted after a bit.

I still think public stuff is better done in the forums.

[Larry Chanin]

Yeah, I think it's an option when you create the group. There is a "test" category where you can try things out. But anything there will be deleted after a bit.

I still think public stuff is better done in the forums.

Hi Doug,

Thanks, we'll probably give it a try.

If this works it will be superior to the commercially available Meet-ups application in some respects. Meetups charges a monthly subscription fee to the moderator (it's free to the members) and the content is completely public to the entire Internet. It just make perfect sense to use TMC to assist in arranging Tesla meetups rather than resorting to a generic meetup application.

I agree that there is still a good reason to continue with the local forums for the majority of public communications.

Larry

[MarkR]

Mark: When you setup your Group did you make it public, or did you choose to moderate who could join or did you make membership by invitation only?

Larry, when I set up the Arizona group, there wasn't a private vs public option, but I probably would have opted to make it public anyway. I'm pleased that we have 6 of 9 AZ res holders in the group and are planning a meet up at the site of the new AZ store next month. Wish that we could do group email broadcasts to gp members, but respect the site's limitations. Doug's efforts to improve TMC are always appreciated!

The TMC members who have joined the AZ group were all invited to join, but it's open to all. Moderating a group isnt much of an issue due to the near absence of moderation tools.

[Larry Chanin]

Larry, when I set up the Arizona group, there wasn't a private vs public option, but I probably would have opted to make it public anyway. I'm pleased that we have 6 of 9 AZ res holders in the group and are planning a meet up at the site of the new AZ store next month. Wish that we could do group email broadcasts to gp members, but respect the site's limitations. Doug's efforts to improve TMC are always appreciated!

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response.

When I posed the question I didn't know that Doug had a private feature that he could enable.

I've published my e-mail address to encourage club membership, but I draw the line at publishing my cell phone number. You don't have any reservations about having your information available to the public?

Regardless of how the organizers feel about their privacy, when trying to organize meetups, particularly at private residences, I'm sure that many of our club members would have problems publishing their address and contact information where anyone had access to it. The absence of this private feature would force our club to resort to multiple private e-mail communications. Having a private bulletin board should make things easier.

Yes, I've actively participated on other forums, but this is certainly the best moderated. I greatly appreciate Doug's efforts.

Larry

[Larry Chanin]

Yeah, I think it's an option when you create the group. There is a "test" category where you can try things out. But anything there will be deleted after a bit.


Hi Doug,

I setup a Florida Tesla Motors Club Group using the " Users must join to view the content" option along with the "Invite only" option. We verified that a TMC member that was not a member of the Group could not access the content. He received the message "this is a invite-only group".

Now, my only problem is how do I go about inviting members? I haven't seen that feature anywhere.

Thanks.

Larry

P.S. Sorry, I found it under what appeared to be greyed-out Admin tools.

[MarkR]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response.

I've published my e-mail address to encourage club membership, but I draw the line at publishing my cell phone number. You don't have any reservations about having your information available to the public?

I greatly appreciate Doug's efforts.

Larry
Having my cell phone listed has not ever been a problem and I think it's useful in attempting to rally the troops to connect in our regions. Maybe some day I'll get burned, but I've been impressed that telemarketers seem to be the only ones with little respect for privacy. and, I agree that Doug's efforts are amazing. I hope he has a life outside of TMC.